UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


TV-'ilW^ 

jrivwiiv^ 

1 

k 

fm 

gCWfwW/l 

ojs'  (  //  '£■  • 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2018  with  funding  from 
University  of  Illinois  Urbana-Champaign 


https://archive.org/details/papersrelatingto00unit_0 


I 


PAPERS 

RELATING  TO 

FOREIGN  AFFAIRS. 


. 

LIST  OF  PAPERS 

RELATING  TO 

# 

FOREIGN  AFFAIRS, 

ACCOMPANYING 

THE  PRESIDENT’S  MESSAGE  TO  CONGRESS,  AT  THE  OPENING  OF  ITS 

SESSION  IN  DECEMBER,  1861. 


CIRCULARS. 

Page. 

Mr.  Black  (Secretary  of  State)  to  all  the  Ministers  of  the  United 

States _  Feb.  28, 1861.  15 

Mr.  Seward  (Secretary  of  State)  to  all  the  Ministers  of  the  United 

States _ ...... _ _  March  9,1861.  16 

Mr.  Seward  to  ministers  of  the  United  States  in  France,  England, 

Paissia,  Prussia,  Austria,  Belgium,  Italy,  and  Denmark .  April  24, 1861.  18 

INSTRUCTIONS  AND  DESPATCHES. 

PRUSSIA. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Judd,  (extract) .  March  22, 1861.  21 

Mr.  Wright  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . . .  May  8,1861.  22 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . . .  May  15,1861.  23 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _ _ _ _ _ _ _  May  26,  1861.  23 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) .  June  8,1861.  24 

Same  to  same,  (extract  with  accompaniments) .  June  25,1861.  25 

Baron  Sclileinitz  to  Baron  Gerolt . . . .  June  13,1861.  25 

Mr  Seward  to  Baron  Gerolt . .  July  16,1861.  28 

Baron  Gerolt  to  Mr.  Seward . . . . . . .  July  17,1861.  29 

Mr  Judd  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) .  July  2,  1861.  30 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) _  July  24, 1861.  31 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Judd . . . . .  July  26,1861.  33 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _  Aug.  12, 1861.  33 

Mr.  Judd  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _  Aug.  27,  1861.  34 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _  Oct.  10, 1861.  34 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Judd _  Oct.  21,  1861.  35 


4 


IXDEX 


BELGIUM. 

Page. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford .  March  22, 1861.  37 

Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . _. .  May  10, 1861.  39 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) .  May  26,1861.  39 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  June  22,1861.  41 

Same  to  same,  (extract  and  accompaniment) _ „ _ _ _  July  2,1861.  42 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford _ ...  May  6, 1861.  43 

Same  to  same .  June  21, 1861.  43 

Same  to  same _ _ ..  June  22,1861.  44 

Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _  July  3, 1861.  44 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford _  July  8, 1861.  45 

Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. - - -  July  18,1861.  45 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford _ _ ...  July  30,1861.  46 

Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward _ _ - _  July  30,1861.  46 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford _ _ _  Aug.  5,1861.  47 

Same  to  same _ _  Aug.  12,1861.  47 

Same  to  same .  Aug.  21, 1861.  47 

MEXICO. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Corwin .  April  6,1861.  49 

Mr.  Corwin  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . . . . .  May  29,1861.  53 

Same  to  same,  (extracts).. . . . .  June  29,1861.  54 

GREAT  BRITAIN. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams . . . . .  April  10,1861.  55 

Mr.  Dallas  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) .  March  22, 1861.  64 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . . - . - . . .  April  5,1861.  65 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . .  April  9,1861.  65 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams .  April  27,  1861.  66 

Mr.  Dallas  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) .  May  2, 1861.  67 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts). . . - . .  May  17,1861.  69 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  (extracts) . .  May  21, 1861.  71 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . .  May  21, 1861.  74 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) . .  May  31,1861.  80 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams . . .  June  3,  1861.  81 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) .  June  7, 1861.  82 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  (with  an  accompaniment). _ .......  June  8,1861.  83 

Same  to  same . . . . .  June  8, 1861.  84 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward .  June  8, 1861.  87 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) . .  June  14,1861.  87 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams .  June  19, 1861.  90 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) .  June  21,1861.  93 

Same  to  same ,  (extracts) . . . .  June  28,1861.  94 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams . . . .  July  1, 1861.  95 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . .  July  12,1861.  97 

Same  to  same,  (with  accompaniments) . . .  July  19,1861.  97 


INDEX. 


5 


GREAT  BRITAIN— Continued. 


Page. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams .  July  21,1861.  101 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) .  July  26,1861.  105 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. . . . . - .  July  26,1861.  107 

Same  to  same . . . .  July  29,1861.  108 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  accompaniments) .  Aug.  2, 1861.  108 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. . . - . - .  Aug.  6,1861.  110 

Same  to  same . .  Aug.  12,1861.  Ill 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract).. . . .  Aug.  16,1861.  Ill 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams . . . . .  Aug.  17,  1861.  112 

Same  to  same . . . . .  Aug.  17,  1861.  114 

Same  to  same . . . . . .  Aug.  17,1861.  117 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  accompaniments)..., . Aug.  23,  1861.  117 

Mr.  F.  W.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams . Aug.  27, 1861.  118 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  accompaniments) .  Aug.  30,1861.  119 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  (extracts) . . .  Sept.  2, 1861.  124 

Same  to  same .  Sept.  7, 1861.  125 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts,  with  accompaniments). _ _  Sept.  7,  1861.  128 

Same  to  same  (with  accompaniments) . . . .  Sept.  9,1861.  133 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams,  (with  an  accompaniment).... . .  Sept.  10,1861.  137 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) .  Sept.  10,  1861.  138 

Same  to  same . . .  Sept.  11,1861.  139 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  accompaniments) .  Sept.  14,1861.  139 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams .  Sept.  14,1861.  141 

Same  to  same .  Sept.  14, 1861.  142 

Same  to  same .  Sept.  25,1861.  142 

Same  to  same .  Sept.  25,  1861.  143 

Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) .  Sept.  28,  1861.  143 

Same  to  same .  Sept.  28,1861.  144 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  accompaniments) .  Oct.  4,  1861.  144 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . .  Oct.  11,1861.  146 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams .  Oct.  22, 1861.  147 

Same  to  same . . . . . * .  Oct.  23,1861.  148 

Same  to  same . . . . .  Oct.  29,1861.  151 

Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons,  (circular) .  Oct.  4, 1861.  152 

Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward . . . . .  Oct.  12,1861.  152 

Same  to  same . . .  Oct.  14,1861.  153 

Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons . .  Oct.  14, 1861.  154 

Same  to  same .  Oct.  14,  1861.  157 

Same  to  same,  (circular) .  Oct.  16,1861.  157 

Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward .  Oct.  17,1861.  157 

Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons . . .  Oct.  18,  1861.  158 

Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) .  Oct.  23,  1861.  158 

Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons.... . . . . .  Oct.  24,1861.  159 

Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward.... .  Oct.  28,  1861.  159 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams.... . .  Nov.  11,1861.  160 


6 


INDEX. 


GREAT  BRITAIN— Continued. 

CASE  OF  THE  “  PERTHSHIRE.” 

Page. 

Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) . .  Oct.  11,1861.  161 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Welles . . Oct.  19,1861.  163 

Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons .  Oct.  19,1861.  163 

Mr.  Welles  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  accompaniments) . .  Oct.  21,1861.  163 

Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons . .  Oct.  24,1861.  165 

AUSTRIA. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Burlingame,  (extracts) .  April  13, 1861.  167 

Mr.  Jones  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . . April  15,1861.  172 

Same  to  same _ _ July  20,1861.  172 

Mr.  Hulsemann  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) -  Aug.  7,1861.  173 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Hulsemann . . .  Aug.  22,1861.  174 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Jones . . . -  Aug.  12,1861.  175 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Motley . . . . . .  Aug.  27,1861.  176 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Motley . . - . .  Sept.  20,1861.  176 

FRANCE. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton . April  22,1861.  179 

Mr.  Faulkner  to  Mr.  Black _ • _  March  19, 1861.  185 

Mr.  Faulkner  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract).. . April  15,1861.  188 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton . . May  4, 1861.  190 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts,  with  an  accompaniment) _  May  22,  1861.  192 

Same  to  same,  (extracts,  with  accompaniments) . May  27, 1861.  196 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton _  May  30, 1861.  199 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) _  May  30, 1861.  200 

Same  to  same,  (extracts,  with  an  accompaniment) . . June  — ,  1861.  202 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) . . . . . - . -  June  7,1861.  204 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton _ June  8, 1861.  205 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts,  with  an  accompaniment) _  June  12,  1861.  206 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton _ June  17,1861.  208 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) _  June  22, 1861.  213 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) . . June  22,1861.  213 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _ June  28,1861.  214 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton,  (extracts). . July  6,1861.  215 

Same  to  same _ _ July  6,1861.  215 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _  July  5, 1861.  218 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) . . . . .  July  22,1861.  219 

Mr  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton,  (extract) . July  26,1861.  219 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  July  30,  1861.  220 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  accompaniments) . . .  July  30,  1S61.  220 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) _ Aug.  2, 1861.  222 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton . Aug.  17, 1861.  224 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . Aug.  17,1861.  224 

Same  to  same .  Aug.  19,1861.  225 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) . Aug.  19,1861.  225 


INDEX. 


p* 

( 


FRANCE— Continued. 


Same  to  same - - - - - 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton . 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton _ _ — . . . - 

Mr  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) _ 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton - - - 

Same  to  same _ _ 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward - - - 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton _ _ _ 

Same  to  same . - - - - - 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton . . . - 

Same  to  same _ 

Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward . . . . . 

SPAIN. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz,  (extract) . 

Mr.  Preston  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _ _ _ .... _ 

Same  to  same,  (extract) - - - - - 

Mr.  Perry  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _ _ _ 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . 

Mr  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz - - - 

Mr.  Perry  to  Mr.  Seward . . . . . . . 

Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts,  with  accompaniments) . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Tassara _ _ _ _ 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. . . . . . 

Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward - - - -  - 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) . . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. _ _ _ _ 

Mr.  Tassara  to  Mr.  Seward . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz . . . - . . . . 

Same  to  same . . - . . . 

Same  to  same  ... . . . . . 

Same  to  same _ _ _ 

Same  to  same,  (with  accompaniments) . . . . 

Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _ . 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . . . . . . . . . 

Same  to  same _ _ _ _ 

Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Schurz . . 

Same  to  same _ _ 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz _ _ _ 

Same  to  same . . . . - _ _ _ _ 

ROME. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr  King . . . 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Stockton . . . . . 

Mr.  Stockton  to  Mr.  Seward . . 


Aug. 

19,1861. 

Page. 

225 

Aug. 

22, 1861. 

226 

Aug. 

29, 1861. 

228 

Sept. 

5,1861. 

231 

Sept. 

7, 1861. 

231 

Sept. 

10,1861. 

233 

Sept. 

10, 1861. 

236 

Sept. 

23,1861. 

237 

Oct. 

10, 1861. 

238 

Oct. 

14, 1861. 

238 

Oct. 

21, 1861. 

238 

Oct. 

21,  1861. 

238 

Oct. 

22,  1861. 

239 

Nov. 

7,1861. 

239 

Nov. 

7, 1861. 

240 

Nov. 

23,1861. 

240 

April 

27,1861. 

241 

April 

22,1861. 

244 

May 

25, 1861. 

244 

June 

13. 1861. 

245 

June 

19,1861. 

247 

June 

22, 1861. 

248 

July 

12, 1861. 

248 

July 

15, 1861. 

250 

July 

15, 1861. 

251 

July 

20,  1861. 

253 

Juiy 

22, 1861. 

253 

Aug. 

5, 1861. 

254 

Aug. 

8, 1861. 

255 

Aug. 

9. 1861. 

255 

Aug. 

15, 1861. 

256 

Aug. 

20, 1861. 

256 

Sept. 

3,1861. 

257 

Sept. 

5, 1861. 

257 

Sept. 

18, 1861. 

257 

Oct. 

9,  1861. 

268 

Oct. 

17, 1861. 

269 

Oct. 

20,  1861. 

271 

Nov. 

5,  1861. 

272 

Nov. 

5, 1861. 

272 

Nov. 

9,  1861. 

274 

Nov. 

11,  1861. 

274 

April 

29,  1861. 

275 

April 

30,  1861. 

276 

Sept. 

14,  1861. 

276 

8 


INDEX 


RUSSIA. 

Page. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay . . . . . .  May  6,1861.  277 

Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr.  Black,  (extract) _ _ _  Jan.  12, 1861.  281 

Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr  Seward,  (extract) . . . .  April  20,1861.  283 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . . . . . .  May  23,1861.  284 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay . . . -- . .  May  21,1861.  285 

Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  accompaniments) _  June  3, 1861.  285 

Mr.  Clay  to  Mr  Seward,  (extract) _  June  7,  1861.  286 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay,  (extract) _  July  8, 1861.  287 

Mr.  Clay  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) _ June  21,  1861.  287 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay _ _ July  9,1861.  290 

Mr.  Clay  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) _ Aug.  3, 1861.  290 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay . . . .  Aug.  12,1861.  291 

Same  to  same .  Sept.  3, 1861.  291 

Prince  Gortchacow’  to  Mr.  de  Stoeckl _ _ _ _  July  10,  1861.  292 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  de  Stoeckl _ _ _  Sept.  7,  1861.  293 

DENMARK. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood,  (extract) . .  May  1, 1861.  295 

Same  to  same . . . . .  May  6,1861.  297 

Mr.  Wood  to  Mr.  Seward . . . . . _  July  11, 1861.  297 

Same  to  same _ _ _ _ . _ . _  July  19,1861.  297 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood . . . . .  Aug.  1,1861.  298 

Same  to  same .  Aug.  22, 1861.  298 

Same  to  same . Sept.  5,1861.  299 

ITALY. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh,  (extracts) _ May  9,1861.  301 

Same  to  same . June  21,1861.  303 

Mr.  Dillon  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts,  with  an  accompaniment) _  June  10,1861.  303 

Mr  Marsh  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) . _ . _ .  June  27,1861.  304 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) _ .... _ - _  July  6,1861.  306 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh  ...... _ July  23,1861.  307 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) _ _ _  July  30,1861.  308 

Mr.  Marsh  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) . .  Sept.  2,  1861.  308 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh _  Sept.  20, 1861.  310 

Same  to  same .  . . . . . . -  Nov.  22,1861.  311 

SWITZERLAND. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Fogg  . . May  15, 1861.  313 

Mr.  Fay  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) .  May  18,1861.  315 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _  June  3,1861.  316 

Same  to  same,  (extract) - - June  7, 1861.  316 

Same  to  same,  (extract) - - - - —  ..  July  2,1861.  317 

Mr.  Fogg  to  Mr.  Seward . July  8,1861.  321 


INDEX. 


9 


SWITZERLAND— Continued. 

Page. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Fogg,  (extract) . . .  July  29,1861.  322 

Same  to  same . . . . . . . .  Aug.  6,1861.  322 

Same  to  same _ _ _ _  Sept.  14, 1861.  323 

NETHERLANDS. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike . . .  May  16,1861.  325 

Mr.  Murphy  to  Mr  Seward,  (extract) . . .  April  2,1861.  327 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) _ _ _ _ _  April  10,1861.  327 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment).. . . . . . .  April  30,1861.  330 

Same  to  same.. . . -  May  27,1861.  333 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) _ ....  June  8,1861.  333 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _ _  _  June  12,1861.  334 

Same  to  same,  (extracts) . . . . . .  June  14,1861.  336 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike . . . .  June  14,1861.  337 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  accompaniments) _ _  June  16,1861.  337 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike . . .  July  1,1861.  339 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) . . . .  July  4, 1861.  339 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr  Pike _ _ _  July  8,1861.  340 

Same  to  same .  July  8,  1861.  340 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . . . . . . .  July  12, 1861.  341 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike.. _ _ _ _  July  26,1861.  341 

Same  to  same . . . . . . .  Aug.  15,1861.  341 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward . . .  Aug.  18,  1861.  342 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . . . .  Aug.  28,1861.  343 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) _ _ _  Sept.  4, 1861.  344 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike.  _ _ _  Sept.  5,1861.  346 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) _ _ _ _ _  Sept.  11,1861.  346 

Same  to  same,  (extract) _ _ _ _  Sept.  18,1861.  349 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike . . . . . .  Sept.  23,  1861.  349 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts,  with  an  accompaniment) _  Sept.  25, 1861.  349 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike _ _.  Sept.  28,1861.  358 

Same  to  same-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _  Oct.  4,1861.  358 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward _ _ _ _ _ _  Oct.  9,1861.  359 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike . . .  Oct.  10, 1861.  360 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts).. . . . . .  Oct.  12,1861.  360 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . . . . . .  Oct.  16, 1861.  362 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. . . . . . . . . .  Oct.  17,1861.  364 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward .  Oct.  23,1861.  367 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr  Pike .  Oct.  30,  1861.  368 

Same  to  same .  Nov.  2,1861.  368 

Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) .  Nov.  6,1861.  369 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike .  Nov.  11,  1861.  370 

Same  to  same . . .  Nov.  11,1861.  370 

Same  to  same .  Nov.  23,1861.  371 


10 


INDEX. 


TURKEY. 

Page. 

Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) .  May  29, 1861.  373 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  June  11,1861.  373 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) .  June  12, 1861.  374 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  accompaniments) .  July  17,1861.  375 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Morris .  Aug.  28,1861.  376 

SWEDEN. 

Mr.  Angel  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) .  May  22, 1861.  379 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) . . .  May  30,1061.  379 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  June  4,1861.  380 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . June  10,1861.  380 

Mr.  Haldeman  to  Mr  Seward,  (extract) .  June  14,1861.  381 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  July  4,1861.  381 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman .  July  8, 1861.  382 

Same  to  same .  July  25,1861.  382 

Mr.  Haldeman  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extracts) .  July  28,1861.  383 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman .  July  30,1861.  383 

Same  to  same .  Aug.  19,1861.  384 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  Aug.  19, 1861.  384 

Same  to  same,  (extract) .  Sept.  7,  1861.  385 

PORTUGAL. 

Mr.  Morgan  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract). .  April  6,1861.  387 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) . May  29, 1861.  387 

Mr.  Harvey  to  Mr.  Seward .  July  25, 1861.  389 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) . . . July  28, 1861.  390 

Same  to  same,  (with  accompaniments) . .  July  30,1861.  392 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Harvey . July  30,  1861.  393 

Same  to  same .  Aug.  17, 1861.  395 

Same  to  same.. .  Aug.  21.  1861.  395 

Same  to  same . Aug.  24,1861.  396 

Mr.  Harvey  to  Mr.  Seward,  (with  an  accompaniment) .  Aug.  25, 1861.  396 

PERU. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Robinson . . Nov.  12,  1861.  399 

GUATEMALA. 

Mr.  Crosby  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) . June  1,1861.  401 

NICARAGUA. 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dickinson .  June  5,1861.  403 

EGYPT. 

Mr.  Thayer  to  Mr  Seward . - .  June  29,1861.  405 

Same  to  same,  (extract) . July  20,1861.  407 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Thayer .  Aug.  13,  1861.  409 


IXDEX. 


11 


VENEZUELA. 

Page . 

Mr.  Turpin  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract) .  July  27,1861.  411 

CHILI. 

Mr.  Bigler  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) .  Aug.  2, 1861.  413 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) . Aug.  17,1861.  414 

Same  to  same,  (extract,  with  an  accompaniment) .  Sept.  2, 1861.  415 

HAWAIIAN  ISLANDS. 

Mr.  Dryer  to  Mr.  Seward,  (extract,  with  accompaniments) .  Sept.  5, 1861.  417 

Same  to  same,  (with  an  accompaniment) .  Sept.  7,1861.  420 

JAPAN. 

Mr.  Harris  to  Mr  Seward,  (with  accompaniments)  .  July  9,1861.  421 

Mr.  Seward  to  Mr  Harris .  Oct.  21,1861.  425 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


, 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Bloch  ( Secretary  of  State)  to  all  the  ministers  of  the  United  States. 

CIRCULAR. 


Department  of  State, 
Washington ,  February  28,  1861. 

Sir  :  You  are,  of  course,  aware  that  the  election  of  last  November  resulted 
in  the  choice  of  Mr.  Abraham  Lincoln;  that  he  was  the  candidate  of  the  re¬ 
publican  or  anti-slavery  party;  that  the  preceding  discussion  had  been  con¬ 
fined  almost  entirely  to  topics  connected,  directly  or  indirectly,  with  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  negro  slavery;  that  every  northern  State  cast  its  whole  electoral 
vote  (except  three  in  New  Jersey)  for  Mr.  Lincoln,  while  in  the  whole  south 
the  popular  sentiment  against  him  was  almost  absolutely  universal.  Some 
of  the  southern  States,  immediately  after  the  election,  took  measures  for 
separating  themselves  from  the  Union,  and  others  soon  followed  their 
example.  Conventions  have  been  called  in  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida, 
Alabama,  Mississippi,  Louisiana,  and  Texas,  and  those  conventions,  in  all 
except  the  last-named  State,  have  passed  ordinances  declaring  their  seces¬ 
sion  from  the  federal  government.  A  congress,  composed  of  representatives 
from  the  six  first-named  States,  has  been  assembled  for  some  time  at  Mont¬ 
gomery,  Alabama.  By  this  body  a  provisional  constitution  has  been  framed 

for  what  it  stvles  the  “  Confederated  States  of  America.” 

*/ 

It  is  not  improbable  that  persons  claiming  to  represent  the  States  which 
have  thus  attempted  to  throw  off  their  federal  obligations  will  seek  a  recog¬ 
nition  of  their  independence  by  the  Emperor  of  Russia.  In  the  event  of  such 
an  effort  being  made,  you  are  expected  by  the  President  to  use  such  means 
as  may  in  your  judgment  be  proper  and  necessary  to  prevent  its  success. 

The  reasons  set  forth  in  the  President’s  message  at  the  opening  of  the 
present  session  of  Congress,  in  support  of  his  opinion  that  the  States  have 
no  constitutional  power  to  secede  from  the  Union,  are  still  unanswered,  and 
are  believed  to  be  unanswerable.  The  grounds  upon  which  they  have 
attempted  to  justify  the  revolutionary  act  of  severing  the  bonds  which  con¬ 
nect  them  with  their  sister  States  are  regarded  as  wholly  insufficient.  This 
government  has  not  relinquished  its  constitutional  jurisdiction  within  the 
territory  of  those  States,  and  does  not  desire  to  do  so. 

It  must  be  very  evident  that  it  is  the  right  of  this  government  to  ask  of 
all  foreign  powers  that  the  latter  shall  take  no  steps  which  may  tend  to 
encourage  the  revolutionary  movement  of  the  seceding  States,  or  increase 
the  danger  of  disaffection  in  those  which  still  remain  loyal.  The  President 
feels  assured  that  the  government  of  the  Emperor  will  not  do  anything  in 
these  affairs  inconsistent  with  the  friendship  which  this  government  has 
always  heretofore  experienced  from  him  and  his  ancestors.  If  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  the  “  Confederated  States”  should  be  acknowledged  by  the 
great  powers  of  Europe  it  would  tend  to  disturb  the  friendly  relations,  diplo¬ 
matic  and  commercial,  now  existing  between  those  powers  and  the  United 


16 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


States.  All  these  are  consequences  which  the  court  of  the  Emperor  will  not 
fail  to  see  are  adverse  to  the  interests  of  Russia  as  well  as  to  those  of  this 
country. 

Your  particular  knowledge  of  our  political  institutions  will  enable  you  to 
explain  satisfactorily  the  causes  of  our  present  domestic  troubles,  and  the 
grounds  of  the  hope  still  entertained  that  entire  harmony  will  soon  be 
restored. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  S.  BLACK. 

John  Appleton,  Esq.,  dc.,  dc.,  dc. 

The  same,  mutatis  mutandis ,  to  W.  Preston,  Esq.,  Madrid;  E.  G.  Fair,  Esq., 
Brussels;  Theo.  S.  Fay,  Esq.,  Berne;  Jos.  A.  Wright,  Esq.,  Berlin;  J.  G. 
Jones,  Esq.,  Vienna;  J.  Williams,  Esq.,  Constantinople;  Geo.  M.  Dallas, 
Esq.,  London;  Chas.  J.  Faulkner,  Esq.,  Paris;  Henry  C.  Murphy,  Esq., 
Hague. 


Mr.  Seward  ( Secretary  of  State)  to  all  the  ministers  of  the  United  States. 

CIRCULAR. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  9,  1861. 

Sir:  My  predecessor,  in  his  despatch,  number  10,  addressed  to  you  on  the 
28th  of  February  last,  instructed  you  to  use  all  proper  and  necessary 
measures  to  prevent  the  success  of  efforts  which  may  be  made  by  persons 
claiming  to  represent  those  States  of  this  Union  in  whose  name  a  provisional 
government  has  been  announced  to  procure  a  recognition  of  their  inde¬ 
pendence  by  the  government  of  Spain. 

I  am  now  instructed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  inform  you 
that,  having  assumed  the  administration  of  the  government  in  pursuance  of 
an  unquestioned  election  and  of  the  directions  of  the  Constitution,  he  renews 
the  injunction  which  I  have  mentioned,  and  relies  upon  the  exercise  of  the 
greatest  possible  diligence  and  fidelity  on  your  part  to  counteract  and  pre¬ 
vent  the  designs  of  those  who  would  invoke  foreign  intervention  to  embar¬ 
rass  or  overthrow  the  republic. 

When  you  reflect  on  the  novelty  of  such  designs,  their  unpatriotic  and 
revolutionary  character,  and  the  long  train  of  evils  which  must  follow 
directly  or  consequentially  from  even  their  partial  or  temporary  success, 
the  President  feels  assured  that  you  will  justly  appreciate  and  cordially 
approve  the  caution  which  prompts  this  communication. 

I  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  the  address  pronounced  by  the  President 
on  taking  the  constitutional  oath  of  office.  It  sets  forth  clearly  the  errors 
of  the  misguided  partisans  who  are  seeking  to  dismember  the  Union,  the 
grounds  on  which  the  conduct  of  those  partisans  is  disallowed,  and  also  the 
general  policy  which  the  government  will  pursue  with  a  view  to  the  preser¬ 
vation  of  domestic  peace  and  order,  and  the  maintenance  and  preservation 
of  the  federal  Union. 

You  will  lose  no  time  in  submitting  this  address  to  the  Spanish  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  and  in  assuring  him  that  the  President  of  the  United 
States  entertains  a  full  confidence  in  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  harmony 
and  unity  of  the  government  by  a  firm,  yet  just  and  liberal  bearing,  co¬ 
operating  with  the  deliberate  and  loyal  action  of  the  American  people. 

You  will  truthfully  urge  upon  the  Spanish  government  the  consideration 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


17 


that  the  present  disturbances  have  had  their  origin  only  in  popular  passions, 
excited  under  novel  circumstances  of  very  transient  character,  and  that 
while  not  one  person  of  well-balanced  mind  has  attempted  to  show  that  dis¬ 
memberment  of  the  Union  would  be  permanently  conducive  to  the  safety  and 
welfare  of  even  his  own  State  or  section,  much  less  of  all  the  States  and  sec¬ 
tions  of  our  country,  the  people  themselves  still  retain  and  cherish  a  pro¬ 
found  confidence  in  our  happy  Constitution,  together  with  a  veneration  and 
affection  for  it  such  as  no  other  form  of  government  ever  received  at  the 
hands  of  those  for  whom  it  was  established. 

We  feel  free  to  assume  that  it  is  the  general  conviction  of  men,  not  only 
here  but  in  all  other  countries,  that  this  federal  Union  affords  a  better  sys¬ 
tem  than  any  other  that  could  be  contrived  to  assure  the  safet}7,  the  peace, 
the  prosperity,  the  welfare,  and  the  happiness  of  all  the  States  of  which  it 
is  composed.  The  position  of  these  States,  and  their  mining,  agricultural, 
manufacturing,  commercial,  political,  and  social  relations  and  influences, 
seem  to  make  it  permanently  the  interest  of  all  other  nations  that  our 
present  political  system  shall  be  unchanged  and  undisturbed.  Any  advan¬ 
tage  that  any  foreign  nation  might  derive  from  a  connexion  that  it  might 
form  with  any  dissatisfied  or  discontented  portion,  State,  or  section,  even  if 
not  altogether  illusory,  would  be  ephemeral,  and  would  be  overbalanced  by 
the  evils  it  would  suffer  from  a  disseverance  of  the  whole  Union,  whose 
manifest  policy  it  must  be  hereafter,  as  it  has  always  been  heretofore,  to 
maintain  peace,  liberal  commerce,  and  cordial  amity  with  all  other  nations, 
and  to  favor  the  establishment  of  well-ordered  government  over  the  whole 
American  continent. 

Nor  do  we  think  we  exaggerate  our  national  importance  when  we  claim 
that  any  political  disaster  that  should  befall  us,  and  introduce  discord  or 
anarchy  among  the  States  that  have  so  long  constituted  one  great  pacific, 
prosperous  nation,  under  a  form  of  government  which  has  approved  itself  to 
the  respect  and  confidence  of  mankind,  might  tend  by  its  influence  to  dis¬ 
turb  and  unsettle  the  existing  systems  of  government  in  other  parts  of  the 
world,  and  arrest  that  progress  of  improvement  and  civilization  which 
marks  the  era  in  which  we  live. 

The  United  States  have  had  too  many  assurances  and  manifestations  of 
the  friendship  and  good  will  of  her  Catholic  Majesty  to  entertain  any  doubt 
that  these  considerations,  and  such  others  as  your  own  large  experience  of 
the  working  of  our  federal  system  will  suggest,  will  have  their  just  influence 
with  her,  and  will  prevent  her  Majesty’s  government  from  yielding  to  solici¬ 
tations  to  intervene  in  any  unfriendly  way  in  the  domestic  concerns  of  our 
country.  The  President  regrets  that  the  events  going  on  here  may  be  pro¬ 
ductive  of  some  possible  inconvenience  to  the  people  and  subjects  of  Spain; 
but  he  is  determined  that  those  inconveniences  shall  be  made  as  light  and 
as  transient  as  possible,  and,  so  far  as  it  may  rest  with  him,  that  all  strangers 
who  may  suffer  any  injury  from  them  shall  be  amply  indemnified.  The  Presi¬ 
dent  expects  that  you  will  be  prompt  in  transmitting  to  this  department 
any  information  you  may  receive  on  the  subject  of  the  attempts  which  have 
suggested  this  communication. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

W.  Preston,  Esq.,  Madrid. 

The  same,  mulatis  mutandis,  to  E.  G.  Fair,  Esq.,  Brussels;  Theo.  S.  Fay,  Esq., 
Berne;  Jos.  A.  Wright,  Esq.,  Berlin;  J.  G.  Jones,  Esq.,  Vienna;  J.  Wil¬ 
liams,  Esq.,  Constantinople;  Geo.  M.  Dallas,  Esq.,  London;  Chas.  J.  Faulk¬ 
ner,  Esq.,  Paris;  John  Appleton,  Esq.,  St.  Petersburg;  Henry  C.  Murphy, 
Esq.,  Hague. 

2 


18 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  ministers  of  the  United  States  in  Great  Britain ,  France ,  Russia , 
Prussia,  Austria ,  Belgium,  Italy,  and  Denmark. 

CIRCULAR. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  24,  1861. 

Sir:  The  advocates  of  benevolence  and  the  believers  in  human  progress, 
encouraged  by  the  slow  though  marked  meliorations  of  the  barbarities  of 
war  which  have  obtained  in  modern  times,  have  been,  as  you  are  well  aware, 
recently  engaged  with  much  assiduity  in  endeavoring  to  effect  some  modifi¬ 
cations  of  the  law  of  nations  in  regard  to  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime 
war.  In  the  spirit  of  these  movements  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
in  the  year  1854,  submitted  to  the  several  maritime  nations  two  propositions, 
to  which  he  solicited  their  assent  as  permanent  principles  of  international 
law,  which  were  as  follows: 

1.  Free  ships  make  free  goods;  that  is  to  say,  that  the  effects  or  goods 
belonging  to  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  power  or  State  at  war  are  free  from 
capture  or  confiscation  when  found  on  board  of  neutral  vessels,  with  the 
exception  of  articles  contraband  of  war. 

2.  That  the  property  of  neutrals  on  board  an  enemy’s  vessel  is  not  sub¬ 
ject  to  confiscation  unless  the  same  be  contraband  of  war. 

Several  of  the  governments  to  which  these  propositions  were  submitted 
expressed  their  willingness  to  accept  them,  while  some  others,  which  were 
in  a  state  of  war,  intimated  a  desire  to  defer  acting  thereon  until  the  return 
of  peace  should  present  what  they  thought  would  be  a  more  auspicious 
season  for  such  interesting  negotiations. 

On  the  16th  of  April,  1856,  a  congress  was  in  session  at  Paris.  It  con¬ 
sisted  of  several  maritime  powers,  represented  by  their  plenipotentiaries, 
namely,  Great  Britain,  Austria,  France,  Russia,  Prussia,  Sardinia,  and  Tur¬ 
key.  That  congress  having  taken  up  the  general  subject  to  which  allusion 
has  already  been  made  in  this  letter,  on  the  day  before  mentioned,  came  to 
an  agreement,  which  they  adopted  in  the  form  of  a  declaration,  to  the  effect 
following,  namely: 

1.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

8.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable 
to  capture  under  enemy’s  flag. 

4  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective;  that  is  to  say,  main¬ 
tained  by  forces  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the  enemy. 

The  agreement  pledged  the  parties  constituting  the  congress  to  bring  the 
declaration  thus  made  to  the  knowledge  of  the  States  which  had  not  been 
represented  in  that  body,  and  to  invite  them  to  accede  to  it.  The  congress, 
however,  at  the  same  time  insisted,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  declaration 
should  be  binding  only  on  the  powers  who  were  or  should  become  parties  to 
it  as  one  whole  and  indivisible  compact;  and,  secondly,  that  the  parties  who 
had  agreed,  and  those  who  should  afterwards  accede  to  it,  should,  after  the 
adoption  of  the  same,  enter  into  no  arrangement  on  the  application  of  mari¬ 
time  law  in  time  of  war  without  stipulating  for  a  strict  observance  of  the 
four  points  resolved  by  the  declaration. 

The  declaration  which  I  have  thus  substantially  recited  of  course  pre¬ 
vented  all  the  powers  which  became  parties  to  it  from  accepting  the  two 
propositions  which  had  been  before  submitted  to  the  maritime  nations  by 
the  President  of  the  United  States. 

The  declaration  was,  in  due  time,  submitted  by  the  governments  repre¬ 
sented  in  the  congress  at  Paris  to  the  government  of  the  United  States. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


19 


The  President,  about  the  14th  of  July,  1856,  made  known  to  the  States 
concerned  his  unwillingness  to  accede  to  the  declaration.  In  making  that 
announcement  on  behalf  of  this  government,  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Marcy, 
called  the  attention  of  those  States  to  the  following  points,  namely: 

1st.  That  the  second  and  third  propositions  contained  in  the  Paris  decla¬ 
ration  are  substantially  the  same  with  the  two  propositions  which  had 

before  been  submitted  to  the  maritime  States  bv  the  President. 

*/ 

2d.  That  the  Paris  declaration,  with  the  conditions  annexed,  was  inad¬ 
missible  by  the  United  States  in  three  respects,  namely:  1st.  That  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  could  not  give  its  assent  to  the  first  proposi¬ 
tion  contained  in  the  declaration,  namely,  that  “Privateering  is  and  remains 
abolished/’  although  it  was  willing  to  accept  it  with  an  amendment  which 
should  exempt  the  private  property  of  individuals,  though  belonging  to 
belligerent  States,  from  seizure  or  confiscation  by  national  vessels  in  mari¬ 
time  war.  2d.  That  for  this  reason  the  stipulation  annexed  to  the  declara¬ 
tion,  viz:  that  the  propositions  must  be  taken  altogether  or  rejected  alto¬ 
gether,  without  modification,  could  not  be  allowed.  3d.  That  the  fourth 
condition  annexed  to  the  declaration,  which  provided  that  the  parties  acced¬ 
ing  to  it  should  enter  into  no  negotiation  for  any  modifications  of  the  law  of 
maritime  war  with  nations  which  should  not  contain  the  four  points  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Paris  declaration,  seemed  inconsistent  with  a  proper  regard  to 
the  national  sovereignty  of  the  United  States. 

On  the  29th  of  July,  1856,  Mr.  Mason,  then  minister  of  the  United  States 
at  Paris,  was  instructed  by  the  President  to  propose  to  the  government  of 
France  to  enter  into  an  arrangement  for  its  adherence,  with  the  United 
States,  to  the  four  principles  of  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris, 
provided  the  first  of  them  should  be  amended  as  specified  in  Mr.  Marcy’s 
note  to  the  Count  de  Sartiges  on  the  28th  of  July,  1856.  Mr.  Mason  accord¬ 
ingly  brought  the  subject  to  the  notice  of  the  imperial  government  of  France, 
which  was  disposed  to  entertain  the  matter  favorably,  but  which  failed  to 
communicate  its  decision  on  the  subject  to  him.  Similar  instructions  regard¬ 
ing  the  matter  were  addressed  by  this  department  to  Mr.  Dallas,  our  minister 
at  London,  on  the  31st  day  of  January,  1857;  but  the  proposition  above 
referred  to  had  not  been  directly  presented  to  the  British  government  by 
him  when  the  administration  of  this  government  by  Franklin  Pierce,  during 
whose  term  these  proceedings  occurred,  came  to  an  end,  on  the  3d  of  March, 
1857,  and  was  succeeded  by  that  of  James  Buchanan,  who  directed  t lie  nego¬ 
tiations  to  be  arrested  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  examine  the 
questions  involved,  and  they  have  ever  since  remained  in  that  state  of  sus¬ 
pension. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  has  now  taken  the  subject  into  consid¬ 
eration,  and  he  is  prepared  to  communicate  his  views  upon  it,  with  a  dispo¬ 
sition  to  bring  the  negotiation  to  a  speed}''  and  satisfactory  conclusion. 

For  that  purpose  you  are  hereby  instructed  to  seek  an  early  opportunity  to 
call  the  attention  of  her  Majesty’s  government  to  the  subject,  and  to  ascertain 
whether  it  is  disposed  to  enter  into  negotiations  for  the  accession  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  to  the  declaration  of  the  Paris  congress,  with 
the  conditions  annexed  by  that  body  to  the  same;  and  if  you  shall  find  that 
government  so  disposed,  you  will  then  enter  into  a  convention  to  that  effect, 
substantially  in  the  form  of  a  project  for  that  purpose  herewith  transmitted 
to  you;  the  convention  to  take  effect  from  the  time  when  the  due  ratifica¬ 
tions  of  the  same  shall  have  been  exchanged.  It  is  presumed  that  you  will 
need  no  special  explanation  of  the  sentiments  of  the  President  on  this  sub¬ 
ject  for  the  purpose  of  conducting  the  necessary  conferences  with  the  gov¬ 
ernment  to  which  you  are  accredited.  Its  assent  is  expected  on  the  ground 
that  the  proposition  is  accepted  at  its  suggestion,  and  in  the  form  it  has 


20 


CORRESPONDENCE* 


preferred.  For  your  own  information  it  will  be  sufficient  to  say  that  the 
President  adheres  to  the  opinion  expressed  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Marcy, 
that  it  would  be  eminently  desirable  for  the  good  of  all  nations  that  the 
property  and  effects  of  private  individuals,  not  contraband,  should  be  exempt 
from  seizure  and  confiscation  by  national  vessels  in  maritime  war.  If  the 
time  and  circumstances  were  propitious  to  a  prosecution  of  the  negotiation 
with  that  object  in  view,  he  would  direct  that  it  should  be  assiduously  pur¬ 
sued.  But  the  right  season  seems  to  have  passed,  at  least  for  the  present. 
Europe  seems  once  more  on  the  verge  of  quite  general  wars.  On  the  other 
hand,  a  portion  of  the  American  people  have  raised  the  standard  of  insurrec¬ 
tion,  and  proclaimed  a  provisional  government,  and,  through  their  organs, 
have  taken  the  bad  resolution  to  invite  privateers  to  prey  upon  the  peaceful  ^ 
commerce  of  the  United  States. 

Prudence  and  humanity  combine  in  persuading  the  President,  under  the 
circumstances,  that  it  is  wise  to  secure  the  lesser  geod  offered  by  the  Paris 
congress,  without  waiting  indefinitely  in  hope  to  obtain  the  greater  one 
offered  to  the  maritime  nations  by  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 

The  same,  mutates  mutandis ,  to  the  ministers  of  the  United  States  in  France, 
Russia,  Prussia,  Austria,  Belgium,  Italy,  and  Denmark. 


Convention  upon  the  subject  of  the  rights  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  in  time  of 
war ,  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  her  Majesty  the  Queen  of 
Great  Britain  and  Ireland. 

The  United  States  of  America  and  her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain 
and  Ireland,  being  equally  animated  by  a  desire  to  define  with  more  pre¬ 
cision  the  rights  of  belligerent  and  neutrals  in  time  of  war,  have,  for  that 
purpose,  conferred  full  powers,  the  President  of  the  United  States  upon 
Charles  F.  Adams,  accredited  as  their  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister 
plenipotentiary  to  her  said  Majesty,  and  her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great 
Britian  and  Ireland,  upon 

And  the  said  plenipotentiaries,  after  having  exchanged  their  full  powers, 
have  concluded  the  following  articles  : 

Article  I. 

1.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished.  2.  The  neutral  flag  covers 
enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war.  3.  Neutral  goods, 
with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable  to  capture  under 
enemy’s  flag.  4.  Blockades  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective;  that 
is  to  say,  maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the 
coast  of  the  enemy. 

Article  II. 

The  present  convention  shall  be  ratified  by  the  President  of  the  LTiited 
States  of  America,  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  and 
by  her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the  ratifications 
shall  be  exchanged  at  Washington,  within  the  space  of  six  months  from  the 
signature,  or  sooner  if  possible.  In  faith  whereof,  the  respective  plenipo¬ 
tentiaries  have  signed  the  present  convention  in  duplicate,  and  have  thereto 
affixed  their  seals. 

Done  at  London,  the  day  of  ,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord,  one 

thousand  eight  hundred  and  sixty-one  (1861.) 


PRUSSIA. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Judd. 

[Extract.] 

No.  l.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  22,  1861. 

Sir:  Contrary  to  what  usually  happens  in  giving  instructions  to  a  minister 
going  abroad,  I  am  directed  by  the  President  to  ask  you  to  fix  your  atten¬ 
tion  in  the  first  instance,  and  to  keep  it  constantly  fixed,  on  the  actual  con¬ 
dition  of  affairs  at  home.  I  allude,  of  course,  to  the  unlawful  and  uncon¬ 
stitutional  attempt  which  is  being  made  to  detach  several  of  the  States 
from  the  federal  Union,  and  to  organize  them  as  an  independent  republic 
under  the  name  of  the  “  Confederate  States  of  America.” 

You  are  well  aware  of  what  you  will  find  Europeans  unable  to  under¬ 
stand,  namely,  that  owing*  to  the  very  peculiar  structure  of  our  federal  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  the  equally  singular  character  and  habits  of  the  American 
people,  this  government  not  only  wisely  but  necessarily  hesitates  to  resort 
to  coercion  and  compulsion  to  secure  a  return  of  the  disaffected  portion  of 
the  people  to  their  customary  allegiance.  The  Union  was  formed  upon 
popular  consent  and  must  always  practically  stand  on  the  same  basis.  The 
temporary  causes  of  alienation  must  pass  away ;  there  must  needs  be  disasters 
and  disappointments  resulting  from  the  exercise  of  unlawful  authority  by 
the  revolutionists,  while  happily  it  is  certain  that  there  is  a  general  and 
profound  sentiment  of  loyalty  pervading  the  public  mind  throughout  the 
United  States.  While  it  is  the  intention  of  the  President  to  maintain  the 
sovereignty  and  rightful  authority  of  the  Union  everywhere  with  firmness  as 
well  as  discretion,  he  at  the  same  time  relies  with  great  confidence  on  the 
salutary  working  of  the  agencies  I  have  mentioned,  to  restore  the  harmony 
and  Union  of  the  States.  But  to  this  end  it  is  of  the  greatest  importance 
that  the  disaffected  States  shall  not  succeed  in  obtaining  favor  or  recognition 
from  foreign  nations. 

It  is  understood  that  the  so-called  Confederate  States  of  America  have 
sent,  or  are  about  to  send,  agents  to  .solicit  such  recognition  in  Europe, 
although  there  is  no  special  reason  for  supposing  Prussia  to  be  one  of  the 
nations  to  which  application  will  be  made.  An  almost  electric  political  con¬ 
nexion,  however,  exists  between  the  several  capitals  of  western  Europe, 
and  therefore  your  most  efficient  and  unfailing  efforts  must  be  put  forth 
directly,  and  even  indirectly,  to  prevent  the  success  of  that  ill-starred 
design. 

This  matter  was  deemed  so  important  by  the  late  administration  that  my 
predecessor,  on  the  28th  of  February  last,  made  it  a  subject  of  a  circular 
despatch,  of  which  an  original  part  was  transmitted  by  him  to  Mr.  Wright, 
who  preceeded  you  in  your  mission. 

The  present  administration  entertain  the  same  general  view  of  the  sub¬ 
ject  which  in  that  despatch  was  taken  by  Mr.  Buchanan.  Accordingly,  on 
the  9th  day  of  March  instant,  I  sent  to  our  representatives  abroad  a  new 
circular  letter  in  which  I  reiterated  and  amplified  the  instructions  which 


22 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


had  thus  been  given  to  them  by  Mr.  Black.  Although  that  circular  will  be 
found  in  the  archives  of  your  legation,  yet  for  your  greater  convenience  I 
append  a  copy  of  it  to  this  communication. 

This  department  has  little  more  to  add  to  that  paper  when  it  is  read,  as  it 
ought  to  be,  in  connexion  with  the  Presidents  inaugural  address,  on  which 
it  rests  for  its  basis. 

It  may,  however,  be  well  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  that 
communication,  as  in  this,  I  have  forborne  altogether  from  discussing  the 
groundless  complaints  and  pretexts  which  have  been  put  forth  by  the  organs 
of  disunion  to  justify  the  rash  and  perilous  revolution  \%hich  they  are 
attempting  to  inaugurate.  I  have  practiced  this  reticence  not  because  the 
point  is  unimportant,  but  because  the  dispute  is  purely  a  domestic  one,  and 
the  President  would  not  willingly  have  the  archives  of  our  legations  bear 
testimony  to  so  un-American  a  proceeding  as  an  acknowledgment,  even  by 
indirection,  that  this  government  ever  consented  to  join  issue  upon  a  purely 
family  matter  of  this  kind  with  a  portion  of  our  own  citizens  before  a  foreign 
tribunal.  Nevertheless,  should  you  find  that  any  weight  is  given  to  those 
complaints  and  pretexts  in  the  court  to  which  you  are  accredited,  your  per¬ 
fect  knowledge  of  all  the  transactions  involved,  will,  I  am  sure,  enable  you 
to  meet  them  conclusively  and  satisfactorily  without  precise  instructions  on 
that  point. 

You  will  not  take  up  any  subject  of  controversy  or  debate  that  may  arise 
between  the  governments  of  Prussia  and  the  United  States,  without  first 
communicating  the  matter  to  this  department,  and  you  will  practice  the 
same  forbearance  on  an}7  subject  of  controversy  which  your  predecessor 
may  have  left  for  your  attention.  These  instructions  are  given  you  because 
it  is  our  first  and  most  earnest  desire  and  expectation  that  you  will  avoid 
all  possible  forms  of  offence  or  irritation,  and  will,  on  the  other  hand, 
endeavor  to  establish  the  most  friendly  and  cordial  relations  with  the  govern 
ment  of  the  King  of  Prussia.  With  this  view  you  will  assure  his  Majesty 
that  the  President  and  people  of  the  United  States  entertain  sentiments  of 
the  highest  respect  and  sincere  good  will  for  his  Majesty  and  the  people  of 
Prussia. 

********** 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Norman  B.  Judd,  Esq,  &cn  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Wright  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  173.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berlin ,  May  8,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have,  since  my  return,  had  a  long  interview  with  Baron  von 
Schleinitz,  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  who,  whilst  he  expressed  the 
earnest  sympathy  of  his  government  with  the  American  people  in  their 
present  troubles,  not  only  because  of  the  effect  of  such  disturbances  upon 
the  commerce  of  Europe,  but  also  on  account  of  the  intimate  relations 
between  the  two  countries, owing  to  the  presence  of  a  large  German  popula¬ 
tion  in  the  United  States,  gave  me  the  most  positive  assurance  that  his 
government,  from  the  principle  of  unrelenting  opposition  to  all  revolutionary 


CORRESPONDENCE.  23 

movements,  would  be  one  of  the  last  to  recognize  any  de  facto  government 
of  the  disaffected  States  of  the  American  Union. 

The  news  of  to-day  has  exerted  the  most  unhappy  influence  upon  the 
Americans  here,  and  the  universal  sentiment  is  a  profound  desire  and  a  hope 

for  the  restoration  of  peace  in  the  United  States.  *  *  * 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  most  respectfully,  your  verv  obedient  servant, 

JOSEPH  A.  WRIGHT. 

His  Excellency  Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Wright  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  174-.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berlin ,  May  15,  1861. 

Sir: 

s)c  j|£ 

The  proclamation  of  the  President  was  received  by  the  previous  mail,  and 
the  subject  has  received  due  consideration. 

On  receipt  of  your  circular  dated  the  20th  of  April,  I  immediately  called 
upon  Baron  von  Schleinitz,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  who  had  received  the 
proclamation  of  the  President,  and  he  at  once  promptly  informed  me  that,  in 
his  opinion,  no  apprehension  need  be  entertained  as  to  Prussian  subjects 
engaging  under  the  authority  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  in  fitting 
out  privateers,  or  in  any  manner  interfering  with  our  commerce.  Prussia 
has  but  few  ports.  Hers  is  not  a  sea-faring  people,  and  the  sympathies  of 
the  government  and  of  the  people  are  with  the  United  States.  Whatever 
danger  may  be  apprehended  on  this  subject  must  come  from  Bremen,  Ham¬ 
burg,  and  other  ports  situated  in  Oldenburg,  Hanover,  &c.  Due  vigilance 
will  be  used  to  prevent  any  such  unlawful  interference,  and  if  any  such  be 
detected  the  proper  authorities  will  be  promptly  advised  thereof,  and  every 
effort  will  be  made  to  suppress  it.  Not  knowing  whether  your  circular  has 
been  sent  to  the  consuls,  I  have  forwarded  copies  to  several  already. 

#  jjs 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOSEPH  A.  WRIGHT. 

His  Excellency  Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Wright  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 


No.  175.] 

Sir: 

*  *  * 


United  States  Legation, 

Berlin ,  May  26,  1861. 

*  *  * 


Enclosed  is  a  copy  of  a  recent  communication  to  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs.  Prussia  will  take  efficient  steps  to  sustain  the  government  of  the 


24 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


United  States  in  the  protection  of  property  and  commerce,  and  will  do  all 
she  can,  consistently  with  her  obligations  to  other  governments,  to  sustain 
the  vigorous  action  of  our  government  in  maintaining  law  and  order. 

The  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  Baron  von  Schleinitz,  informed  me  on 
yesterday  that  it  was  the  intention  of  the  government  to  issue  a  proclama¬ 
tion  touching  these  questions. 

The  government  and  people  are,  in  spirit  and  feeling,  with  us.  I  am  in 
the  receipt  of  hundreds  of  letters  and  personal  calls  seeking  positions  in  the 
American  army,  and  asking  for  means  of  conveyance  to  our  shores.  So 
numerous,  indeed,  are  the  applications,  that  I  have  been  compelled  to  place 
on  the  doors  of  the  legation  a  notice  to  the  purport  that  “This  is  the  lega¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States,  and  not  a  recruiting  office.”  The  fidelity  and 
firmness  exhibited  with  such  unanimity  by  our  own  people  in  sustaining  the 
administration  in  their  efforts  to  put  down  the  outrages  of  the  so-called 
“Confederate  States,”  whilst  it  astonishes  the  people  of  the  old  world,  is  at 
the  same  time  rapidly  creating  a  sentiment  of  confidence  in  our  ability  to 
maintain  unimpaired  the  institutions  of  our  fathers. 

Let  the  cost  be  what  it  may,  we  must  vindicate  the  memory  of  our  fathers 
from  the  slanders  announced  by  those  in  high  places  in  the  so-called  “  Con¬ 
federate  States,”  wherein  they  have  proclaimed  ours  is  only  a  confederation 
of  States,  and  not  a  national  union. 

^  '7'  'T*  'T*  W* 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  most  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOSEPH  A.  WEIGHT 

His  Excellency  Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington ,  D.  G. 


Mr.  Wright  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  1 T  6.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berlin ,  June  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Although  the  Prussian  government  has  not  issued  a  proclamation 
upon  the  subject  referred  to  in  my  last  despatch,  I  still  continue  to  receive 
from  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  the  strongest  assurances  of  the  sympathies 

and  friendship  of  this  government.  *  *  *  * 

*  *  *  ***** 

Your  circular  of  the  6th  of  May  has  been  received,  but  the  subject  had 
been  duly  considered  previously  thereto.  No  opportunity  will  be  neglected 
to  counteract  any  efforts  that  may  be  made  by  individuals  or  associations  in 

negotiations  hostile  to  the  United  States. 

****** 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  most  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOSEPH  A.  WRIGHT. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D  C. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


25 


Mr.  Wright  to  Mr.  Seivard. 

[Extract.] 


No.  178.] 

Sir: 

*  *  * 


United  States  Legation, 

Berlin ,  June  25,  1861. 

*  *  * 


I  have  received  this  moment  a  copy  of  the  National  Zeitung ,  containing  the 
despatch  of  Baron  von  Schleinitz  to  Baron  Gerolt;  and  also  an  order  from  the 
minister  of  commerce,  addressed  to  Prussian  subjects  engaged  in  trade  and 
commerce.  This  is  not  what  I  had  expected.  I  was  anticipating  a  procla¬ 
mation  from  the  King  more  full  and  distinct.  This  will  doubtless  have  the 
desired  effect,  as  it  will  be  published  in  all  the  German  journals,  and  coming 
from  Prussia  will  be  duly  respected  by  the  German  States  and  Free  Cities 
Their  sympathy  and  spirit  is  with  the  United  States  government. 

Mr.  Judd  is  expected  on  the  27th  instant. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOSEPH  A.  WRIGHT. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington  City. 


Baron  Schleinitz  to  Baron  Gerolt. 

[Translation .] 

Berlin,  June  13,  1861. 

The  various  herewith  enclosed  statements,  by  which  your  excellency  has 
given  me  a  knowledge  of  the  occurrences  through  which  the  internal  tran¬ 
quillity  of  the  Union  is  disturbed,  have  called  forth  my  serious  considera¬ 
tion.  The  hope  which,  until  now,  we  so  willingly  entertained,  that  the 
inchoate  conflict  between  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  sundry 
of  the  southern  States  of  the  Union  would  be  brought  to  an  amicable  set¬ 
tlement,  is  now,  unhappily,  in  view  of  existing  conditions,  borne  back  to  a 
far  distance. 

The  indubitable  fact  of  the  state  of  the  intestine  warfare  in  which  the 
Union  is  placed  is  a  source  of  deep  regret  to  the  King’s  government.  The 
relations  of  close  friendship  which  connect  Prussia  and  the  government  of 
the  United  States  exist  from  the  foundation  of  the  Union.  They  have  en¬ 
dured  nearly  a  hundred  years;  never  at  any  time  disturbed  by  change  of 
circumstances,  nor  in  any  wise  impaired. 

By  a  series  of  treaties,  by  means  of  which  the  improvement  of  the  inter¬ 
ests  of  manufacture  and  commerce  on  either  side  has  been  eminently 
developed,  the  intimate  relations  between  the  two  States  have  attained  a 
prosperous  durability.  At  no  time,  between  these  two  powers,  has  any 
collision  of  antagonistic  interests  found  a  foothold.  The  soaring  flight 
which  the  internal  prosperity  of  the  Union  has  taken,  extending  its  range 
from  year  to  year  by  means  of  the  bond  of  unity  of  the  States  thus  knit 
together,  the  commanding  attitude  which  North  America  has  attained, 
abroad,  has  been  looked  upon  by  Prussia  not  merely  with  no  dissatisfaction 
but  has  rather  been  greeted  by  her  with  honest  sympathy. 

The  more  earnestly,  then,  do  we  regret  that  the  continuance  of  so  pros¬ 
perous  a  condition  of  things  should  appear  to  be  placed  in  question  by  the 


26 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


inchoate  disturbance  of  that  internal  unity,  the  unshaken  existence  of  which 
had,  until  this  time,  formed  the  surest  foundation  of  the  Union.  It  behooves 
not  the  royal  government  either  to  discuss  the  causes  of  existing  contro¬ 
versies  or  to  pass  judgment  upon  those  debatable  questions  which  belong 
entirely  to  the  domestic  relations  of  the  Union.  Our  whole  endeavor  in 
this  matter  must  be  addressed  to  sustaining  the  United  States  in  their  here¬ 
tofore  existing  relations  with  us,  even  under  the  difficult  circumstances  of 
the  present  time. 

Nevertheless,  by  the  serious  turn  which  the  conflict  that  has  broken  out 
has  already  taken,  and  by  the  consequent  self-reliant  mode  of  proceeding  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States  in  relation  to  blockades,  and  the 
treatment  of  neutral  navigation,  essential  and  important  interests  on  this 
side  are  also  affected,  and  the  royal  government  has  taken  into  earnest  con¬ 
sideration  the  protection  thereof  on  grounds  of  international  law  and  in 
conformity  with  treaty  stipulations. 

Your  excellency  has  full  knowledge  of  the  negotiations  which,  through  a 
series  of  years,  were  carried  on  between  Prussia  and  the  United  States, 
upon  the  principles  which  ought  to  be  brought  into  application  in  naval  war¬ 
fare  in  relation  to  the  rights  of  neutral  shipping.  It  is  to  the  credit  of  the 
North  American  Cabinet  that,  in  the  year  1854,  it  availed  itself  of  the  plan  of 
a  treaty,  proposed  with  us,  to  be  first  to  take  the  initiative  for  putting  the 
rights  above  mentioned  in  liberal  and  practical  shape  upon  a  broader  founda¬ 
tion  of  well  settled  principles.  We  then  willingly  acceded  to  the  North 
American  proposition,  and  although  the  negotiations  conducted  by  your 
excellency  were  closed  without  attaining  the  desired  result,  because  a  stand 
was  then  taken  against  that  abolition  of  privateering  which  was  suggested 
by  us,  it  has,  meantime,  nevertheless,  so  fallen  out  that  the  general  united 
desire  to  establish  the  recognition  of  the  rights  of  neutral  shipping  during 
maritime  warfare  upon  more  extended  and  unassailable  foundations  has 
attracted,  in  praiseworthy  degree,  the  attention  of  the  great  powers  of  Eu¬ 
rope.  The  declaration  upon  maritime  rights  by  the  Paris  convention,  on 
the  16th  April,  1856,  stands  in  evidence  of  this.  The  collective  States  of 
Europe,  with  the  exception  of  Spain  only,  gave  their  adhesion  thereto.  But 
the  United  States  of  North  America,  in  regard  to  the  first  principle  con¬ 
cerning  the  abolition  of  privateering,  to  our  regret,  1  bought  proper  to  qualify 
their  assent  to  the  Paris  declaration,  if  we  do  not  misapprehend  the  liberal 
and  well-intentioned  views  by  which  that  cabinet  was  guided  in  the  matter. 
These  were  made  known  in  the  proposition  of  President  Pierce  upon  the 
subject,  according  to  which  the  principle  that  private  property  on  the  seas 
should  be  altogether  inviolable,  should  be  included  among  the  provisions  of 
the  law  of  nations.  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  President  did  not  succeed 
in  giving  effect  to  his  proposition.  The  estimation  with  which  we  regarded 
his  course  is  sufficiently  knowm  to  your  excellencv. 

By  reason  of  the  consequently  prevailing  doubts  about  the  treatment  to 
which  neutral  shipping  may  be  subjected  during  the  condition  of  things 
there  connected  with  an  incipient  state  of  war,  I  must  request  your  excel¬ 
lency  will  please  to  make  this  interesting  question  the  subject  of  a  friendly 
and  unreserved  conference  with  the  Secretary  of  State  of  that  country. 

It  would  certainly  be  most  desirable  to  us  that  the  government  of  the 
United  States  might  embrace  this  occasion  to  announce  their  adhesion  to 
the  Paris  declaration.  Should  this  not  be  attained,  then,  for  the  present,  we 
would  urge  that  an  exposition  might  be  made,  to  be  obligatory  during  the 
now  commencing  intestine  war,  in  regard  to  the  application  generally  of 
the  second  and  third  principles  of  the  Paris  declaration  to  neutral  shipping. 
The  provision  of  the  second  principle,  that  the  neutral  flag  covers  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


27 


enemy’s  cargo,  (with  exception  of  contraband  of  war,)  is  already  assured 
to  Prussian  shipping  by  our  treaty  with  the  United  States  of  May  1,  1828, 
again  adopting  article  twelve  of  the  treaty  of  September  10,  1785. 

We  lay  much  stress  upon  this  toward  bringing  round  a  determination  to 
make  application  of  this  principle  at  the  present  time  to  neutral  shipping 
generally  and  universally.  We  doubt  this  the  less  because,  according  to  a 
despatch  from  the  then  President,  addressed  by  the  Secretary  of  State,  L. 
Cass,  under  date  of  June  27,  1859,  to  the  minister  of  the  United  States  in 
Paris,  and  also  communicated  to  us,  without  further  referring  to  the  Paris 
declaration,  it  is  expressly  mentioned  that  the  principle  that  the  neutral  flag 
covers  the  enemy’s  cargo  (contraband  of  war  excepted)  would  be  reduced 
to  application  in  respect  to  the  shipping  of  the  United  States  always,  and  in 
its  full  extent. 

The  import  of  the  third  principle,  by  which  neutral  private  property  under 
an  enemy’s  flag  (except  contraband  of  war)  is  inviolable,  becomes,  in  respect 
of  its  immediate  recognition  by  the  United  States,  a  stringent  necessity  to 
the  neutral  powers. 

Let  there  be  a  doubt  of  the  application  of  this  principle,  and  the  business 
enterprises  of  neutral  States  are  exposed  to  inevitable  shocks,  and  collisions 
of  every  conceivable  kind  are  to  be  dreaded.  To  provide  for  the  avoidance 
of  these  in  due  season,  we  must  at  least  anxiously  desire. 

It  would  minister  greatly  to  my  satisfaction  if  your  excellency,  as  soon  as 
may  be,  could  officially  inform  me  that  the  overtures  and  propositions  which 
you  are  commissioned  to  make  to  the  administration  have  found  a  favorable 
reception. 

SCHLEINITZ. 

His  Excellency  B  iron  Von  Gerolt,  &c.}  &c.,  &c.,  Washington. 


[Translation.] 

On  the  same  subject  the  minister  of  commerce  issued  the  notification  annexed 
to  the  mercantile  classes  in  the  Baltic  ports: 

It  is  my  duty  to  make  known  to  you  that  during  the  continuance  of  the 
conflict  which  has  broken  out  among  the  North  American  States  the  mercan¬ 
tile  classes  must  abstain  from  all  enterprises  which  are  forbidden  by  the 
general  principles  of  international  law,  and  especially  by  the  ordinance  of 
the  12th  of  June,  1856,  which  has  relation  to  the  declaration  of  the  12th  of 
April,  1856,  upon  the  principles  ot  maritime  law.  Moreover,  I  will  not  omit 
to  make  it  especially  noticeable  by  you  that  the  royal  government  will  not 
permit  to  its  shipping  or  its  subjects,  which  may  mix  up  in  these  conflicts  by 
taking  letters  of  marque,  sharing  in  privateering  enterprises,  carrying  mer¬ 
chandise  contraband  of  war,  or  forwarding  despatches,  to  have  the  benefit  of 
its  protection  against  any  losses  which  may  befall  them  through  such 
transactions. 

The  equipment  of  privateers  in  the  poits  of  this  country  is  forbidden  by 
the  laws  of  the  land,  as  is  known  to  the  mercantile  community. 


28 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Baron  Gerolt. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  16,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  has  the  honor 
of  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  a  copy  of  a  letter  of  instruction,  under  the 
date  of  the  13th  of  June,  from  Baron  Schleinitz,  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  to  Baron  Gerolt,  his  Majesty’s 
envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  United  States, 
which  Baron  Gerolt  has  submitted  for  perusal  to  the  undersigned. 

Baron  Gerolt,  in  pursuance  of  this  instruction,  has  referred  to  doubts  said 
to  prevail  in  Europe  about  the  treatment  to  which  neutral  shipping  may 
be  subjected  during  the  continuance  of  the  internal  disturbance  now  exist¬ 
ing  in  the  United  States,  and  has  requested  from  the  undersigned  an  expla¬ 
nation  of  the  views  of  this  government  thereupon. 

Baron  Schleinitz,  in  this  communication,  has  remarked  that  it  would  cer¬ 
tainly  be  most  desirable  for  Prussia  that  this  government  should  embrace 
this  occasion  to  announce  its  adhesion  to  the  celebrated  declaration  of  Paris. 
But  that  if  this  could  not  be  attained,  then,  for  the  present,  the  government 
of  Prussia  would  urge  that  an  exposition  might  be  made  to  be  obligatory 
during  the  present  intestine  disturbances  in  the  United  States,  in  regard  to 
the  application  generally  of  the  second  and  third  principles  of  the  Paris 
declaration  to  neutral  shipping. 

The  second  principle  of  the  Paris  declaration  is,  that  the  neutral  flag 
covers  the  enemy’s  goods,  not  contraband  of  war. 

The  third  principle  is,  that  the  goods,  not  contraband  of  war,  of  a  neutral 
found  on  board  an  enemy’s  vessel  are  exempt  from  confiscation. 

The  undersigned  has  the  pleasure  of  informing  Baron  Gerolt,  by  authority 
of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  that  the  government  cheerfully 
declares  its  assent  to  these  principles  in  the  present  case,  and  to  continue 
until  the  insurrection  which  now  unhappily  exists  in  the  United  States  shall 
have  come  to  an  end,  and  they  will  be  fully  observed  by  this  government  in 
its  relations  with  Prussia. 

But  the  undersigned  would  be  doing  injustice  to  this  government  if  he 
should  omit  to  add,  by  way  of  explanation,  that  so  long  ago  as  the  24th  of 
April  last  he  transmitted  ample  instructions  and  powers  to  Mr.  Judd,  the 
then  newly  appointed  Minister  of  the  United  States  to  Berlin,  authorizing 
him  to  enter  into  a  treaty  (subject  to  the  consent  of  the  Senate  of  the 
United  States)  with  the  kingdom  of  Prussia  for  the  adhesion  of  this  govern¬ 
ment  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  at  Paris.  Similar  instructions  and 
powers  were  given  to  all  the  ministers  appointed  to  conduct  diplomatic 
intercourse  with  all  existing  maritime  powers.  This  government  in  these 
instructions  declared  its  continued  desire  and  preference  for  the  amend¬ 
ment  of  the  Paris  declaration  proposed  by  this  government  in  1856,  to  the 
effect  that  the  private  or  individual  property  of  non-combatants,  whether 
belonging  to  belligerent  States  or  not,  should  be  exempted  from  confiscation 
in  maritime  war.  But  recurring  to  the  previous  failure  to  secure  the 
adoption  of  that  amendment,  this  government  instructed  its  ministers,  if 
they  should  find  it  necessary,  to  waive  it  for  the  present,  and  to  negotiate 
our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  pure  and  simple. 

The  delay  of  Mr.  Judd  in  his  departure  tor  Berlin  is  probably  the  cause 
why  this  proposition  was  not  made  by  him  to  the  Prussian  government 
previous  to  the  date  of  the  instruction  given  by  Baron  Schleinitz  to  Baron 
Gerolt,  which  formed  the  occasion  of  the  present  note. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


29 


This  government  having  thus  practically  anticipated  the  wishes  of  the 
Prussian  government,  the  undersigned  has,  of  course,  been  the  more  at 
liberty  to  accede  to  those  wishes  in  the  more  limited  extent  in  which  they 
are  expressed  by  Baron  Schleinitz. 

The  undersigned  at  the  same  time  holds  himself  none  the  less  bound  to 
proceed  with  a  view  to  a  more  ample  and  more  formal  establishment  of  the 
benign  principles  of  maritime  war  in  regard  to  neutral  commerce  as  indi¬ 
cated  in  the  instructions  given  to  Mr.  Judd. 

Of  course  the  undersigned  will  be  understood  as  not  qualifying  or  modi¬ 
fying  by  this  communication  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  close  any  of 
the  national  ports  which  have  already  fallen  or  which  may  fall  into  the 
hands  of  the  insurgents,  either  directly  or  in  the  lenient  and  equitable  form 
of  the  blockade  which  is  now  in  full  force. 

The  undersigned  cannot  close  this  communication  without  expressing  to 
Baron  Gerolt  the  great  satisfaction  with  which  this  government  has  learned, 
through  the  communication  now  acknowledged,  that  his  Majesty  the  King  of 
Prussia  faithfully  adheres  to  the  existing  treaties  between  the  two  countries, 
and  fulfils,  without  question  or  reservation,  all  their  obligations.  This  an¬ 
nouncement  is  accompanied  by  assurances  of  good  feeling  and  good  will 
that  will  not  fail,  under  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  times,  to  make  a 
deep  and  lasting  impression  on  the  government  and  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  and  to  perpetuate  the  friendship  that  for  near  a  century  has  existed 
between  the  two  countries  to  the  great  advantage  and  lasting  honor  of  both. 

Baron  Gerolt  may  be  assured  that  the  government  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  deliberately  and  carefully  surveyed  the  unhappy  disturb¬ 
ance  of  their  social  condition  which  has  caused  so  much  anxiety  to  all 
friendly  commercial  nations,  and  have  adopted  the  necessary  means  for  its 
speedy  and  complete  removal,  so  that  they  expect  to  be  able  to  prosecute 
their  accustomed  career  of  enterprise,  and,  while  fulfilling  all  the  national 
obligations,  to  co-operate  with  enlightened  nations  engaged,  like  Prussia,  , 
in  enlarging  and  increasing  the  sway  of  commerce,  and  in  promoting  and 
advancing  the  high  interests  of  civilization  and  humanity. 

The  undersigned  offers  to  Baron  Gerolt  renewed  assurances  of  his  high 
consideration. 

:  WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Barox  Fr.  Gerolt,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc., 

Washington. 


Baron  Gerolt  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Translation  ] 

Legation  of  Prussia, 
Washington,  July  IT,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  his 
Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  has  had  the  honor  to  receive  the  note  of  the 
honorable  Mr.  Seward,  Secretary  of  the  United  States,  in  reply  to  the  instruc¬ 
tions  which  Baron  de  Schleinitz,  minister  of  foreign  affairs  at  Berlin,  trans¬ 
mitted  to  the  undersigned  to  be  communicated  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States. 


30 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  undersigned  cannot  but  felicitate  himself  on  the  declaration  made  in 
this  note  in  favor  of  the  treatment  of  neutrals  pending  the  duration  of 
intestine  disturbances  in  the  United  States,  as  well  as  on  the  sentiments  of 
friendship  and  good  understanding  expressed  in  the  note  of  the  honorable 
W.  H.  Seward  towards  the  government  of  his  Majesty,  to  which  the  under¬ 
signed  will  hasten  to  communicate  these  demonstrations  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States. 

The  undersigned  seizes  this  occasion  to  renew  to  the  honorable  W.  H. 
Seward  the  protestations  of  his  most  distinguished  consideration. 

FR.  YON  GEROLT. 


lion.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  Washington. 


Mr.  Judd  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extracts.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Berlin ,  July  2,  1861. 

Sir:  I  arrived  in  Berlin  on  Thursday,  the  twenty-seventh  ultimo,  and  was 
cordially  welcomed  by  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Wright,  whose  attentions  and 
civilities,  together  with  the  information  imparted  to  me  in  connexion  with 
the  mission,  have  tended  very  much  to  make  my  entry  into  Berlin  and  induc¬ 
tion  into  office  agreeable  and  pleasant. 

Mr.  Wri  gilt’s  position  here  and  his  influence,  as  the  representative  of  our 
government,  with  the  authorities,  has  been  alike  creditable  and  honorable  to 
himself  and  useful  to  the  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

His  firm  straightforward  Americanism  has  won  the  respect  of,  and  exerted 
a  decided  influence  upon,  the  ruling  powers  of  this  kingdom. 

On  the  28th  of  June  Mr.  Wright  applied  to  his  excellency  Baron  von 
Schleinitz,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  for  an  interview,  for  the  purpose  of 
presenting  his  open  letter  of  recall,  and  affording  me  the  opportunity  of  pre¬ 
senting  the  copy  of  my  letter  of  credence,  and  requesting  my  presentation 
to  his  Majesty  the  King. 

The  baron  named  the  next  day,  at  three  o’clock  p.  m.;  and,  in  accordance 
with  the  appointment,  Mr.  Wright  and  myself  called  upon  the  minister  and 
presented  our  respective  letters.  In  reply  to  my  request  for  an  audience, 
the  baron  stated  that  the  King  was  at  Potsdam;  that  he  would  notify  him  of 
our  wishes,  and  advise  of  his  Majesty’s  pleasure  upon  the  subject. 

if: 


On  Monday,  the  first  of  July,  a  note  from  the  minister  advised  me  that  the 
King  would  receive  me  in  private  audience  at  his  palace  in  Berlin  at  half 
past  four  p.  m.  of  that  day. 

Mr.  Wright  and  myself  attended,  in  pursuance  of  the  summons,  and  were 
presented  to  his  Majesty  by  Baron  von  Schleinitz. 

Mr.  Wright  presented  his  letter  of  recall,  and  addressed  his  Majesty  some 
remarks  appropriate  to  the  occasion,  of  which  his  despatch  of  to-day  will 
contain  an  account. 

J  then  presented  my  letter  of  credence,  and  stated  to  his  Majesty  that  I 
was  instructed  by  the  President  to  convey  to  him  the  President’s  wishes  for 
his  health  and  happiness,  and  for  the  prosperity  of  his  kingdom.  That  our 
government  desired  that  the  friendly  relations  so  long  existing  between  the 
two  governments  might  continue  and  increase  with  the  growing  prosperity 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


31 


of  the  two  nations.  That  for  myself,  personally,  1  hoped  that  my  residence 
near  his  Majesty’s  government  might  be  useful  to  the  citizens  of  my  country, 
and  acceptable  to  his  Majesty.  That  I  should  endeavor  in  my  official  action 
to  promote  and  increase  the  harmony,  good  will,  and  friendly  feelings  that 
had  so  long  existed  between  the  two  nations,  and  that  I  presented  my  own 
best  wishes  for  the  health  and  happiness  of  his  Majesty. 

The  King,  in  reply,  expressed  his  warm  feelings  towards  Mr.  Wright,  and 
stated  that  he  regretted  the  troubles  in  our  country;  that  he  hoped  soon  to 
see  them  ended,  and  the  integrity  and  majesty  of  our  government  and  law 
maintained,  and  order  triumph. 

He  thanked  Mr.  Wright  for  his  allusion  to  the  past  friendly  relations,  and 
the  manner  in  which  he  had  promoted  the  same,  and  assured  us  that  he  was 
happy  to  hear  through  me  the  assurance  of  the  continuance  of  the  same. 

The  day  following  my  presentation  was  occupied  by  me  in  establishing 
my  relations  with  the  ministers  of  state  and  the  several  diplomatic  function¬ 
aries  residing  at  this  court. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  B.  JUDD. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Judd  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 

No.  4.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Berlin ,  July  24,  1861. 

Sir:  On  the  9th  of  July  instant,  in  pursuance  of  the  special  instructions 
contained  in  despatch  No.  4,  from  the  Department  of  State  to  this  legation, 
under  date  of  April  24,  1861,  to  seek  an  early  opportunity  to  ascertain 
whether  the  government  of  Prussia  is  disposed  to  enter  into  negotiations 
for  the  accession  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  the  articles  of 
the  declaration  of  the  congress  assembled  at  Paris,  April  16,  1856,  on  the 
question  of  privateering  and  maritime  war,  I  had  an  interview  with  Baron 
von  Schleinitz,  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia. 
In  communicating  to  the  baron  my  instructions  on  that  subject,  and  inform¬ 
ing  him  of  the  disposition  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  bring 
the  negotiation  on  the  basis  of  the  Paris  declaration  to  a  speedy  and  satis¬ 
factory  conclusion,  I,  at  the  same  time,  expressed  to  him  how  eminently 
desirable  for  the  good  of  all  nations  the  President  deems  it  that  the  property 
and  effects,  not  contraband  of  war,  of  private  individuals,  although  citizens 
of  belligerent  States,  should  be  exempt  from  seizure  and  confiscation  by 
national  vessels  in  time  of  maritime  war.  The  baron,  in  response,  assured 
me  that  his  Majesty’s  government  desired  to  adopt  the  most  liberal  policy 
on  that  subject. 

1  then  alluded  to  his  Instructions  to  Baron  Yon  Gerolt,  the  Prussian  minis¬ 
ter  in  Washington,  as  published  in  the  official  journal,  the  “  Staats  Anzeiger,” 


32 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


and  inquired  if  it  was  desired  to  transfer  the  negotiations  to  Washington* 
He  replied  in  the  negative,  adding  that  the  purpose  and  intent  of  the  docu" 
ment  chiefly  was  to  give  utterance  to,  and  make  manifest  the  good  will  of, 
his  Majesty’s  government  towards  that  of  the  United  States,  and  to  furnish 
a  full  and  free  communication  and  exchange  of  views  between  the  two  gov¬ 
ernments. 

In  reply  to  his  inquiry,  whether  the  President  of  the  United  States,  through 
me,  was  prepared  to  submit  propositions  for  a  convention,  I  informed  him 
that  I  had  special  powers  to  negotiate  a  treaty  based  upon  the  Paris  decla¬ 
ration,  and  that  a  memorandum  for  that  purpose  had  been  prepared  by  the 
Department  of  State  for  my  guidance.  To  my  inquiry,  whether  the  produc¬ 
tion  of  the  evidence  of  my  special  authority  was  desired  at  this  time,  he 
replied  negatively,  but  asked  to  be  informed  whether  the  treaty  was  intended 
to  be  a  joint  one  with  all  the  parties  to  the  Paris  conference,  or  a  separate 
convention  with  each  one  of  the  parties.  I  responded  that  my  instructions 
directed  me  to  negotiate  with  the  Prussian  government  only.  He  then 
requested  that  the  propositions  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  be 
submitted  in  writing,  promising,  in  that  event,  an  early  consideration  of  the 
same.  Accordingly,  on  the  11th  day  of  July  instant,  I  addressed  a  com¬ 
munication  to  Baron  von  Schleinitz,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  together  with 
a  copy  of  the  memorandum  for  a  convention  upon  the  subject  of  belligerents 
and  neutrals  in  time  of  war  between  the  United  States  of  America  and  his 
Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia,  as  furnished  me  by  the  Department  of  State, 
in  connexion  with  its  despatch  No.  4,  under  date  of  April  24,  1861.  A  copy 
of  my  communication  accompanies  this  despatch,  marked  Exhibit  No.  1. 
No  reply  has  yet  been  received  from  Baron  von  Schleinitz  to  that  commu¬ 
nication. 

********* 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  B.  JUDD. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Exhibit  No.  1. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Berlin ,  July  11,  1861. 

Monsieur  le  Baron:  The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister 
plenipotentiary,  has  the  honor  herewith  to  present  the  memoranda  referred 
to  in  our  conversation  of  yesterday,  it  being  simply  a  statement  of  the 
articles  of  the  declaration  adopted  by  the  congress  assembled  at  Paris,  April 
16,  1856. 

While  the  President  has  instructed  the  undersigned  to  present  and  assent 
to  a  convention  in  terms  substantially  that  of  the  congress  at  Paris,  the 
President,  nevertheless,  desires  the  undersigned  to  submit  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Prussia  how  just  and  eminently  desirable 
for  the  good  of  all  nations  he  considers  it  that  the  property  and  effects  of 
private  individuals,  not  contraband  of  war,  should  be  exempt  from  seizure 
and  confiscation  by  national  vessels  in  time  of  maritime  war,  although  be¬ 
longing  to  the  citizens  and  subjects  of  the  belligerent  States;  and  in  view 
of  this  fact,  the  undersigned  begs  leave  to  state  to  your  excellency  that  he 
feels  authorized  and  prepared  to  so  modify  the  propositions  he  has  the  honor 
herewith  to  submit  as  to  embrace  the  principle  above  stated,  if  it  should 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


33 


meet  the  views  and  be  deemed  desirable  by  the  government  of  his  Majesty 
the  King  of  Prussia. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  opportunity  to  assure  your  excel¬ 
lency  of  his  high  and  distinguished  consideration. 

X.  B.  JUDD. 

His  Excellencv  Baron  von  Schleinitz, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs,  Sfe.,  fyc.,  Sfc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Judd. 

No.  7.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  26,  1861.' 

Sir:  Mr.  Wright’s  despatch,  No.  177,  dated  June  22,  was  duly  received. 

Baron  Gerolt  has  handed  to  me  a  copy  of  the  instruction  from  his  gov¬ 
ernment,  to  which  Mr.  Wright  refers.  I  have  acknowledged  the  tenor  of 
that’paper  as  not  unacceptable,  but  I  agree  with  Mr.  Wright  in  thinking  it 
desirable  that  the  strongest  possible  expressions  be  obtained  from  Prussia 
for  their  moral  effect. 

Our  army  on  the  Potomac  encountered  a  reverse  on  the  21st,  which,  for 
the  moment,  produced  a  shock;  but  the  evil  effects  of  the  disaster  have 
already  passed  away,  while  a  more  vigorous  and  determined  resolution  exists 
now  than  ever  to  strengthen  and  preserve  the  Union. 

We  have  put  all  the  candidates  recommended  to  us  by  Baron  Schleinitz 
into  military  employment. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Norman  B.  Judd,  Esq.,  Sfc.,  fyc.,  fyc.t  Berlin. 


Mr.  Seivard  to  Mr.  Judd. 

[Extract.] 

No.  12.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  12,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  July  24,  No.  3,  has  been  received.  Your  conduct 
in  relation  to  the  subject  of  negotiations  for  a  convention  with  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  Prussia  on  the  subject  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime  war,  as 
referred  to  in  that  paper,  is  approved.  *  *  *  *  * 

*  ********* 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Norman  B.  Judd,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


3 


34 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Judd  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  6.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Berlin,  August  27,  1861. 

Pi  4*  ^  ^  »i« 

•  *TV  "T*  ^  'T*  'C  'T  ^ 

Since  my  written  communication  to  Baron  Yon  Schleinitz  on  the  subject 
of  the  maritime  treaty,  a  copy  of  which  was  sent  to  the  State  Department 
in  my  despatch  No.  4,  I  have  not  heard  from  this  government  directly  upon 
the  subject;  but  Baron  Yon  Mohrenheim,  of  the  Russian  legation,  informs  me 
that,  in  conversation  with  Baron  von  Schleinitz,  the  latter  expressed  the 
opinion  that  the  object  sought  by  the  United  States  could  be  attained  by  a 
simple  adhesion  on  its  part  to  the  articles  of  the  Paris  treaty,  and  that  there 
was  no  necessity  for  a  formal  and  separate  treaty.  I  also  learned  from 
Baron  von  Mohrenheim  that  the  Russian  government  inclined  to  the  same 
opinion.  My  conversations  with  the  members  of  the  diplomatic  corps  here 
have  convinced  me  that  they  are  not  only  thoroughly  advised  of  the  views 
and  action  of  their  own  governments  in  this  matter,  but  that  every  step 
taken  by  any  government  interested  is  promptly  communicated,  so  that  each 
representative  is  fully  advised  of  the  condition  of  the  question  with  all  the 

governments,  and  that  there  is  concerted  action,  with  England  at  the  head. 

^  \1/  >1/  ^ 

•Jv*  'T'  xfv  4Tfc  'P  'r 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  B.  JUDD. 

Hon.  \Y.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Judd  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  10.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Berlin ,  October  10,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatch  (No. 
14)  bearing  date  September  21,  1861.  Since  my  communication  to  the 
foreign  office  here  in  relation  to  the  maritime  treaty,  a  copy  of  which  accom¬ 
panied  despatch  No.  4,  from  this  legation,  I  have  no  word  or  note  from  the 
Prussian  government  on  the  subject. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

N.  B.  JUDD. 

Hon.  \Y.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington,  D.  C. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


35 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Judd. 


No.  16.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  24  (No.  8)  has  been  received.  It  treats 
of  many  matters  interesting,  though  not  of  chief  importance.  Your  pro¬ 
ceedings  in  regard  to  them  are  approved.  Disunion,  by  surprise  and 
impetuous  passion,  took  the  first  successes,  and  profited  by  them  to  make 
public  opinion  in  Europe.  Union  comes  forward  more  slowly,  but  with 
greater  and  more  enduring  vigor.  This  nation,  like  every  other,  in  the 
present  as  in  all  other  cases,  stands  by  its  own  strength.  Other  powers  will 
respect  it  so  long  as  it  exhibits  its  ability  to  defend  and  save  itself.  More, 
perhaps,  ought  not  to  be  wished;  certainly  it  could  not  be  reasonably  ex¬ 
pected. 

I  am,  &c., 

N.  B  Judd,  Esq., 

fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Berlin. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


* 

, 

' 


■ 


. 


* 


BELGIUM. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  March  26,  1861. 

Sir:  Having  spent  the  winter  in  Washington,  you  need  not  be  informed 
of  the  attempts  of  a  misguided  party  of  citizens  in  several  of  the  southern 
States,  not  unattended  with  violence  and  spoliation,  to  dismember  the  federal 
republic,  and  of  their  scheme  to  organize  several  of  the  States  in  a  new 
revolutionary  government,  under  the  name  of  the  Confederate  States  of 
America.  Formidable  as  this  conspiracy  seemed  at  the  beginning,  it  is 
now  confidently  believed  that  the  policy  of  the  present  administration  in 
regard  to  it  will  be  supported  by  the  people — a  policy  of  conciliation!' 
forbearance,  and  firmness — and  that  the  conspiracy  will  thus  fail  for 
want  of  ultimate  adoption  by  the  States  themselves  which  are  expected 
to  constitute  the  new  confederacy.  Aware  of  this  danger,  the  movers  in 
that  desperate  and  destructive  enterprise  are  now  understood  to  be  making 
every  effort  to  gain  external  advantage  by  appeals  to  prejudice  or  supposed 
interest  in  foreign  nations  for  a  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  pro¬ 
posed  new  confederacy. 

Under  these  circumstances  the  most  important  duty  of  the  diplomatic 
representatives  of  the  United  States  in  Europe  will  be  to  counteract  by  all 
proper  means  the  efforts  of  the  agents  of  that  projected  confederacy  at  their 
respective  courts.  It  was  your  extensive  acquaintance  on  the  continent, 
taken  in  connexion  with  your  activity  and  energy  here,  which  induced  the 
President  to  confer  upon  you  the  appointment  of  minister  resident  in 
Belgium. 

The  general  considerations  to  be  urged  against  such  a  recognition  will 
be  found  in  the  inaugural  address  of  the  President,  delivered  on  the  4th  of 
March  instant,  and  in  a  circular  letter  despatched  by  me  on  the  9th  instant 
to  our  ministers,  an  original  part  of  which  will  be  found  in  the  archives  of 
your  legation.  For  your  present  convenience  I  enclose  a  copy  of  this  cir¬ 
cular  letter. 

The  President,  confident  of  the  ultimate  ascendancy  of  law,  order,  and  the 
Union,  through  the  deliberate  action  of  the  people  in  constitutional  forms, 
does  not  expect  you  to  engage  in  any  discussion  which  the  agents  of  the 
disunionists  may  attempt  to  initiate  on  the  merits  of  their  proposed  revolu¬ 
tion.  He  will  not  consent,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  the  interpellation  of  any 
foreign  power  in  a  controversy  which  is  merely  a  domestic  one. 

There  is  some  reason  to  suppose  that  the  agents  of  the  disunionists  will 
attempt  to  win  favor  for  their  scheme  of  recognition  by  affecting  to  sympa¬ 
thize  with  the  manufacturing  interests  of  the  European  nations  in  their 
discontent  with  the  tariff  laws  of  the  United  States,  and  by  promising  to 
receive  the  fabrics  of  such  nations  on  more  favorable  terms.  You  will  be 
able  to  reply  to  such  seductions  as  these  that  the  new  tariff  laws  thus  com¬ 
plained  of  are  revenue  laws  deemed  by  the  legislature  of  the  United  States 
necessary  under  new  and  peculiar  circumstances;  that  all  experience  shows 


38 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


that  such  laws  are  not  and  cannot  be  permanent;  that  if,  as  is  now  pre¬ 
tended,  they  shall  prove  to  be  onerous  to  foreign  commerce,  they,  will,  of 
course,  prove  also  to  be  unfruitful  of  revenue,  and  that  in  that  case  they 
will  necessarily  be  promptly  modified.  The  inconvenience,  if  any  shall 
result  from  them,  wdll  therefore  be  temporary  and  practically  harmless.  Nor 
will  any  statesman  of  a  foreign  country  need  to  be  informed  that  the  con¬ 
sumption  of  the  fabrics  which  it  is  proposed  shall  be  favored  by  the  so-called 
seceding  States  chiefly  takes  place,  not  within  those  States,  but  in  a  very 
large  degree  in  the  States  which  remain  undisturbed  by  this  unhappy 
attempt  at  revolution 

It  hardly  needs  be  added  that  the  recognition  which  the  insurgents  States 
desire  tends  through  either  peace  or  war  to  the  establishment  of  a  new 
government.  That  new  government,  like  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  must  levy  imports  on  foreign  merchandise,  while  it  must  also  resort 
to  an  export  duty  on  cotton,  its  great  staple,  for  its  support  ;  and  these  two 
measures  combined  would  constitute  a  policy  largely  prohibitive,  instead  of 
the  liberal  and  genial  one  which  is  now  promised  by  the  disunion  party. 

You  will  not  fail  to  represent  to  the  government  of  the  King  of  the 
Belgians  that  all  the  interests  of  European  manufactures  and  com¬ 
merce  are  identified  with  the  promotion  of  peace  and  the  undisturbed 
activity  of  the  American  people.  An  act  of  recognition  in  favor  of  a  now 
discontented  party  would  necessarily  tend  to  encourage  that  party  to 
attempt  to  establish  their  separation  from  the  Union  by  civil  war,  the  con¬ 
sequences  of  which  would  be  disastrous  to  all  the  existing  systems  of  indus¬ 
trial  activity  in  Europe,  and  when  once  they  had  begun,  those  consequences 
would  be  likely  to  continue  indefinitely;  whereas  no  nation  in  Europe  can 
hope  that  their  own  interests  would  be  as  safe  and  prosperous  under  any 
change  of  government  here  as  they  are  now  and  have  so  long  been  under 
our  present  system. 

It  is  quite  manifest  already  that  differences  and  embarrassing  questions 
may  soon  arise  concerning  the  conduct  of  commerce,  and  that  the  commer¬ 
cial  States  of  Europe  may  be  subjected  to  strong  seductions  to  violate  our 
revenue  laws  and  regulations.  You  will  say  generally  on  this  subject  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  will  expect  the  same  respect  to  those 
laws  and  regulations  which  has  hitherto  been  shown  and  which  our  treaties 
of  amity  and  commerce  entitle  us  to  demand,  and  that  it  will  not  hold  itself 
bound  to  favor  or  exempt  from  consequences  any  parties,  of  whatever 
nation,  who  may  violate  them.  It  does  not  at  all  distrust  its  ability  to 
maintain  them  or  the  good  disposition  of  its  allies  to  observe  them. 

I  shall  not  enlarge  on  these  subjects,  insomuch  as  the  phase  of  the  whole 
affair  changes  almost  daily.  The  President  willingly  expects  to  rely  on 
your  astuteness  in  discovering  points  of  attack  and  your  practical  skill  and 
experience  in  protecting  the  interests  of  the  United  States.  He  will  expect 
you,  however,  to  communicate  to  this  department  very  fully  and  frequently, 
and  you  will  receive  prompt  instructions  in  every  new  emergency. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  <£c.,  &c.,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


39 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 


No.  1.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Brussels,  May  10,  1861. 

gIR.  ********* 

I  was  received  by  the  King,  to  present  my  letter  of  credence,  on  the  8th, 
in  “solemn  audience,”  and  made  on  the  occasion  an  address,  of  which  I 
enclose  a  copy,  (A.) 

The  King  replied  that  he  highly  appreciated  the  sentiments  of  friendly 
feeling,  of  which  I  bore  to  him  the  expression,  from  the  President,  and  the 
flattering  terms,  as  he  expressed  it,  in  which  they  were  couched.  He  desired 
me  to  tender  to  the  President  his  thanks  for  them,  and  to  say  that  he  recip¬ 
rocated  fully  the  desire  for  the  continuance  of  the  friendly  and  cordial  rela¬ 
tions  which,  during  the  more  than  thirty  years  that  had  elapsed  since  the 
formation  of  his  government,  had  marked  our  intercourse,  and  he  hoped  for 
the  continued  prosperity  of  the  United  States.  After  some  remarks  compli¬ 
mentary  to  myself  and  my  former  residence  in  Europe,  he  entered  into  general 
conversation,  in  which  he  showed  great  interest  in  and  knowledge  of  the 
United  States,  manifesting  a  warm  desire  to  have  the  means  of  direct  inter¬ 
course  increased  between  the  two  countries.  The  genius  of  his  people,  he 
said,  was  rather  for  industrial  pursuits  at  home,  and  in  which  they  had  been 
very  successful;  but  they  had  failed  upon  the  seas;  and  he  thought  if  the 
enterprise  and  practical  knowledge  of  our  people  could  be  brought  to  bear 
in  favor  of  steam  communication  between  Belgium  and  the  United  States,  a 
large  trade  could  be  diverted  through  this  channel,  Antwerp  being  a  natural 
entrepot  for  Central  Europe. 

His  Majesty  spoke  but  generally  of  the  insurrection  in  the  southern  States; 
said  he  hoped  that  some  peaceful  issue  would  be  found,  and  that  the  spirit 
of  conciliation  would  prevail,  and  then  referred  to  the  growing  markets  they 
had  for  their  manufactures  in  the  United  States.  My  audience,  which  was 
lengthened  by  a  long  conversation  on  general  subjects,  was  most  satisfac¬ 
tory,  in  the  very  kind  and  cordial  spirit  manifested  by  his  Majesty. 

%[/  *1/  »•/  »•/ 

^  ^ 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

II.  S.  SANFORD. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  5.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Brussels,  May  26,  1861. 

Sir:  I  had  a  conversation  to-day  with  M.  de  Vriere  on  the  subject  of  the 
efforts  of  the  commissioners  of  the  so-called  “  Confederate  States”  to  obtain 
recognition  of  the  European  powers. 

He  informed  me  that  no  application  had  been  made  to  him  in  this  view, 
nor  would  it  now  be  entertained  if  made.  The  revolution  would  receive  no 


40 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


sanction  by  any  act  of  Belgium.  A  small  State,  he  continued,  whose  pros¬ 
perity  depended  on  the  full  exercise  of  the  industrial  pursuits  of  its  people, 
they  did  not  mingle  in  foreign  politics,  their  policy  being  not  to  imperil 
their  interests  by  stepping  beyond  the  limits  of  strict  neutrality  in  their 
intercourse  with  other  States.  They  should,  therefore,  remain  “neutral,”  as 
he  expressed  it,  in  respect  to  this  question.  They  had  not  even  yet  recog¬ 
nized  the  Italian  government,  he  added.  We  desired,  I  told  him,  not  to  be 
subjected  to  any  interference  in  the  settlement  of  our  domestic  affairs, 
whether  in  the  form  of  recognition  of  political  existence  or  of  belligerent 
rights  of  those  who  were  in  open  rebellion  to  the  government  and  laws  of 
the  United  States.  It  was  an  issue  between  order  and  anarchy  which  we 
were  fully  able  to  cope  with,  aud  all  Europe  was  interested  that  its  settle¬ 
ment  be  in  the  most  prompt  and  effective  manner,  as  least  liable  to  cause 
permanent  derangement  to  commerce. 

In  reply  to  my  inquiry,  he  said  he  had  received  no  official  information  of 
the  blockade  of  our  southern  ports,  proclaimed  by  the  President,  although 
he  had  late  advices  from  the  Belgian  minister  at  Washington.  He  had  only 
knowledge  of  it,  he  said,  as  printed  in  the  papers.  In  answer  to  his  inquiry, 
I  said  I  thought  it  would  not  injuriously  affect  the  supply  of  cotton,  as  the 
crop  of  the  past  year  had  mostly  gone  forward;  and,  moreover,  that  while 
the  blockade  would  be  rigorously  enforced  with  regard  to  supplies,  or  vessels 
bearing  the  “confederate”  flag,  I  presumed,  although  I  had  no  instructions 
on  the  subject,  that  the  vessels  now  loading,  or  under  engagements  to  load 
in  those  ports,  would  be  allowed  reasonable  time  to  leave;  that  there  was 
every  desire  to  make  this  condition  of  things,  which  was  but  temporary,  as 
little  embarrassing  as  possible  to  foreign  commerce.  The  minister  expressed 
great  satisfaction  at  this,  and  said  that  the  possibility  of  failure  of  the  cotton 
supply,  growing  out  of  these  troubles  in  our  southern  States,  was  causing 
great  anxiety. 

M.  de  Yriere  then  spoke  of  the  new  tariff  with  a  great  deal  of  feeling; 
said  that  it  was  highly  prejudicial  to  their  interests,  instancing  in  point 
that  forty  furnaces  for  the  manufacture  of  window  glass  had  been  stopped 
in  consequence,  and  expressed  his  surprise  that,  in  this  age  of  progress, 
when  Europe  was  abandoning  the  exploded  S37stem,  as  he  expressed  himself, 
of  differential  duties,  the  United  States  should  pursue  such  a  course.  Their 
own  experience  as  a  manufacturing  people  had  convinced  them  of  the  bad 
policy  of  such  a  system  for  the  interests  of  the  manufacturers  themselves. 
I  replied  that  I  presumed  the  general  interruptions  of  trade  consequent  upon 
apprehended  war  in  the  United  States  was,  quite  as  much  as  the  new  tariff, 
a  cause  for  suspension  of  the  traffic  he  referred  to.  The  tariff  had  been 
augmented  by  the  last  Congress  to  produce  more  revenue;  if  it  failed  to 
produce  such  result,  it  would  probably  be  changed;  it  was  a  matter  dependent 
on  the  will  of  Congress,  and  he  was  aware  we  had  had  several  changes  in 
the  past  few  years,  none  of  which  had  apparently  given  satisfaction  to  the 
manufacturing  States  of  Europe  which  desired  to  supply  our  markets;  stilt, 
it  was  our  main  source  of  revenue,  and  the  system  of  raising  means  for  the 
expenses  of  the  government  by  a  duty  on  importations  would  probably  long 
continue. 

*****  ***** 


I  took  my  leave  of  M.  de  Yriere  with  the  repeated  assurance  that  no 
countenance  would  be  given,  in  any  form,  to  the  rebellion  in  our  southern 
States. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

H.  S.  SANFORD. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


41 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  9.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Brussels,  June  22,  1861. 

Sir:  As  M.  de  Vriere  is  out  of  town,  I  directed  tlie  attention  of  Monsieur 
Saluremont,  tlie  secretary  general,  who  is  charged  with  the  affairs  of  the 
department  in  the  absence  of  the  minister,  in  an  interview  with  him  to-day,  as 
to  the  propriety  of  a  proclamation  warning  Belgians  from  taking  service  under 
those  in  rebellion  to  the  federal  government,  furnishing  them  “  aid  and  com¬ 
fort,”  and,  especially,  closing  the  ports  of  Belgium  to  their  “ privateer s” — 
declared  by  the  President  to  be  pirates — or  permitting  them  to  be  fitted  out 
in  her  ports.  I  said  that  wdiile  the  assurances  I  had  received  from  M.  de 
Vriere,  soon  after  my  arrival,  of  the  attitude  of  his  government  had  been 
satisfactory,  I  hoped  it  would  now  give  public  expression  to  them,  both  as 
due  to  a  friendly  power  and  as  a  warning  to  their  own  citizens  of  the  perils 
of  such  enterprises. 

Mons.  Saluremont  replied  that  the  matter  had  been  under  consideration; 
that  the  position  which  England  and  France  had  taken  had  not  seemed  to 
be  satisfactory  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  they  had  de¬ 
layed,  in  consequence,  taking  any  formal  steps;  but  not,  he  begged  me  to  be 
assured,  from  any  want  of  friendly  spirit  or  desire  to  do  all  the  occasion 
called  for  at  their  hands. 

I  replied  that  he  was  correct  in  his  views  of  our  sentiments  as  to  the 
course  which  England  and  France  had  seen  fit  to  pursue.  We  could  not 
look  upon  the  recognition  of  belligerent  rights  to  those  who,  under  our  laws, 
were  rebels,  and  before  we  had  attempted  to  employ  forcible  means  of  coer¬ 
cion,  as  evincing  the  friendly  spirit  we  had  a  right  to  expect;  that  these 
people  would  be  treated  none  the  less  as  rebels  on  the  land  as  pirates  on  the 
seas — they  or  those  of  whatever  nationality  who  joined  them;  and  we 
counted,  on  the  part  of  Belgium,  upon  no  such  qualification  of  our  citizens 
in  rebellion,  whom  we  were  engaged  in  submitting  to  the  action  of  our  laws. 

He  said  their  legislation  provided  generally  for  the  cases  I  had  instanced, 
but  that  attention  would  be  immediately  given  to  the  subject,  and  he  thought 
we  need  not  have  any  reason  to  be  dissatisfied  with  the  action  they  would 
take  in  the  premises. 

lie  then  told  me  that  our  new  tariff  law  was  a  subject  of  great  complaint 
in  Belgium,  and  great  distress  in  some  brancnes  of  industry  which  it  had 
destroyed,  referring  specially  to  glass  and  some  kinds  of  woollen  goods. 

I  again  explained  our  system  of  revenue,  which  all  manufacturing  States 
this  side  the  Atlantic  insist  upon  believing  to  be  disadvantageous  to  their 
interests. 

*  *  * 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

H.  S.  SANFORD. 


Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


42 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  10.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Brussels,  July  2,  1861. 

Sir:  Referring  to  a  conversation  detailed  in  my  despatch  No.  9,  I  have 
the  honor  to  enclose  a  notice  published  in  the  official  journal  (the  Moniteur) 
of  the  25th  ultimo,  in  which,  basing  its  action  upon  the  stipulations  of  the 
declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  of  April  16,  1856,  it  is  announced  that 
instructions  have  been  addressed  to  the  judicial,  maritime,  and  military 
authorities  to  inform  them  that  privateers  of  no  nation  or  flag,  alone  or  with 
their  prizes,  will  be  permitted,  save  in  cases  of  extreme  danger  by  stress  of 
weather,  to  enter  the  ports  of  Belgium;  enjoining  upon  them  to  recognize 
no  commission  or  letter  of  marque  as  having  validity;  and  warning  all 
subject  to  the  Belgian  laws  that  in  taking  part  or  service  in  any  privateers 
they  incur  risk  of  being  treated  as  pirates  abroad,  and  of  being  prosecuted 
with  the  utmost  rigor  of  the  laws  at  home.  In  thanking  the  acting  minister 
for  this  prompt  response  to  my  request,  I  observed  that  while  this  was  suffi¬ 
cient,  in  so  far  as  it  went,  for  the  occasion  that  called  it  forth — as  we  had, 
and  expected  to  have,  no  privateers  upon  the  sea  at  this  time — still,  so  long 
as  we  were  not  a  party  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  the  employment  of  priva¬ 
teers  by  the  United  States  was  undoubted^  as  much  a  belligerent  right  as  the 
employment  of  militia  on  land;  and  in  the  event  of  a  foreign  war  we  should 
expect,  on  the  part  of  friendly  powers,  no  such  impediment  to  its  exercise 
by  any  injurious  distinction  between  it  and  the  other  arms  of  the  public 
service. 

Jji  ^  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

H.  S.  SANFORD. 


[Translation.] 

Belgium  has  given  its  adhesion  to  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  congress  of  Paris  of  April  16,  1856.  This  adhesion  was  pub¬ 
lished,  together  with  said  declaration,  in  the  Belgian  Moniteur  of  June 
8,  1856. 

The  commercial  public  is  notified  that  instructions  on  this  subject  have 
been  given  to  the  judicial,  maritime,  and  military  authorities,  warning  them 
that  privateers,  under  whatever  flag  or  commission,  or  letters  of  marque,  are 
not  to  be  allowed  to  enter  our  ports  except  in  case  of  imminent  perils  of  the 
sea.  The  aforesaid  authorities  are  charged,  consequently,  to  keep  a  strict 
watch  upon  all  such  privateers  and  their  prizes,  and  to  compel  them  to  put 
to  sea  again  as  soon  as  practicable. 

The  same  authorities  have  been  charged  not  to  recognize  the  validity  ot 
any  commission  or  letter  of  marque  whatsoever. 

All  persons  subject  to  the  laws  of  Belgium,  who  shall  fit  out  or  take  any 
part  in  any  privateering  expedition,  will  therefore  expose  themselves  to  the 
danger,  on  the  one  hand,  of  being  treated  as  pirates  abroad,  and,  on  the 
other,  to  prosecution  before  Belgian  tribunals  with  all  the  rigor  of  the  laws. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


43 


Mr.  Seicard  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  4.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  6,  1861. 

Sir:  Herewith  I  transmit  a  copy  of  a  despatch  of  the  24th  ultimo,  which 
has  been  addressed  to  the  several  ministers  of  the  United  States  accredited 
to  the  maritime  powers  whose  plenipotentiaries  composed  the  congress  of 
Paris  of  the  16th  April,  1856,  calling  their  attention  to  the  importance  of 
endeavoring  to  negotiate  with  those  powers  conventions  upon  the  subject  of 
the  rights  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  in  time  of  war.  The  government  of 
Belgium  was  not  represented  in  the  Paris  congress;  but  the  negotiation  of 
a  similar  convention  with  that  government  is  considered  desirable,  and  you 
will  therefore  be  governed  by  the  instruction  of  which  I  enclose  a  transcript, 
and  endeavor  to  effect  that  object.  With  this  view  I  herewith  send  you  a 
full  power  and  a  draft  of  the  proposed  convention. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  §c.,  fyc.,  Brussels. 


Mr.  Seicard  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  9  ]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatches  (No.  5,  dated  May  26,  and  No.  6,  of  the  same  date) 
have  been  received.  We  are  especially  pleased  with  Mr.  de  Yriere’s  just 
and  friendly  sentiments  in  regard  to  our  affairs. 

You  are  aware  that  the  declaration  of  Paris  enjoins  each  of  the  parties 
that  have  signed  it  not  to  negotiate  any  other  changes  of  the  law  of  nations 
concerning  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime  war.  We  have  supposed  that 
this  wmuld  operate  to  prevent  Great  Britain,  and  probably  France,  from  re¬ 
ceiving  our  accession  to  the  declaration,  if  we  should  insist  on  the  amend¬ 
ment  proposed  by  Mr.  Marcy,  namely,  the  exemption  of  private  property  of 
non-belligerents  from  confiscation.  But  we  should  now,  as  the  instructions 
heretofore  given  you  have  already  informed  you,  vastly  prefer  to  have  that 
amendment  accepted.  Nevertheless,  if  this  cannot  be  done,  let  the  conven¬ 
tion  be  made  for  adherence  to  the  declaration  pure  and  simple. 

The  feverish  excitement  which  prevailed  when  you  left  the  country  is 
passing  away.  Public  confidence  in  the  ability  of  the  government  to  repress 
the  insurrection  and  preserve  the  Union  is  practically  restored,  and  the 
beneficial  result  that  two  months  ago  seemed  problematical  is  now  regarded 
as  only  a  question  of  time. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

H.  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  SfC.,  SfC.,  Brussels. 


44 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  11.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  22,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  5th  June,  (No.  8,)  accompanied  by  a  copy  of 
your  letter  to  Mr.  de  Vriere,  on  the  subject  of  our  proposed  adherence  to  the 
declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  has  been  received.  We  see  no  reason 
to  doubt  the  propriety  of  that  communication. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 
Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc ,  Brussels. 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  11.]  United  States  Legation, 

Brussels,  July  3,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  not  been  unmindful  of  your  instructions  (No.  2)  respecting  a 
convention  for  the  abrogation  of  passports  for  our  citizens  travelling  or 
sojourning  in  Belgium. 

As  already  intimated  in  my  first  despatch,  passports  are  already  almost 
virtually  abolished  here,  the  visa  being  no  longer  necessary.  The  usual 
course  of  this  government  in  respect  to  this  subject  is,  upon  notification  by 
a  government  that  Belgians  are  not  required  to  be  provided  with  passports 
to  enter  upon  or  travel  within  its  territories,  to  exempt  equally  citizens  or 
subjects  of  such  nations  in  Belgium. 

This  course  has  been  pursued  with  Sweden  and  Holland,  and  will  be  soon 
followed  with  France  and  England. 

In  view  of  the  disturbances  in  our  southern  States,  and  the  consequent 
impossibility  of  assuring  entire  reciprocity  of  exemption  from  passports 
throughout  our  territory,  I  have  not  deemed  it  advisable  at  this  time  to 
make  any  proposition  on  this  subject. 

1  am  assured  by  Mr.  De  Vriere  that,  on  formal  notification  that  Belgians  will 
not  be  required  to  present  passports  in  the  United  States,  the  proper  authori¬ 
ties  here  will  direct  the  exemption  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  travelling 
here  from  the  requirement  of  passports. 

They  would  need,  however,  in  case  of  domicile  here,  some  document  to 
prove  their  identity.  In  this  connexion,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  refer 
to  a  conversation  I  had  some  time  since  on  this  subject  of  the  abolition  of 
passports,  with  the  officer  in  charge  of  that  branch  of  the  public  service  in 
France. 

He  said  that  they  had  already  exempted  British  subjects  coming  to  France 
from  the  action  of  the  passport  regulations,  and  had  lately  made  similar 
exemptions  with  regard  to  Sweden,  and  were  about  to  make  the  same  ex¬ 
emptions  with  respect  to  Belgium,  and  would  with  most  other  nations  on  a 
footing  of  reciprocity.  This  was,  however,  a  purely  administrative  act, 
liable  to  be  recalled  whenever  considered  for  the  interest  of  the  state.  They 
would  in  no  case  make  a  treaty  which  should  bind  them  to  the  perpetual 
abolition  of  passports  vis-a-vis  to  my  nation. 

In  the  present  aspect  of  affairs  in  the  United  States,  they  deemed  it  im- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


45 


portant  to  have  a  control  over  the  movements  of  their  citizens  to  the  United 
States  and  vice  versa  of  ours  in  French  territory;  and  deemed  the  present  an 
inopportune  time  to  make  any  change  in  the  passport  system  with  respect 
to  the  United  States. 

When  matters  returned  to  their  normal  condition,  there  would  be  no  objec¬ 
tion,  he  said,  to  suspend  their  passport  regulations  for  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  and  a  simple  administrative  order  was  all  that  was  necessary  on  their 
part,  and  could  be  made  at  any  time  when  deemed  expedient. 

********* 

********* 

********* 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  humble  servant, 

H.  S.  SANFORD. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  12.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  June  22  (No.  9)  was  duly  received.  It  is,  in  the 
main,  not  unsatisfactory,  so  far  as  the  subject  of  our  domestic  affairs  is  con¬ 
cerned. 

In  regard  to  the  rights  of  friendly  or  neutral  powers  in  maritime  war,  the 
subject  has  become  somewhat  complicated,  and  it  would  be  a  tedious  labor 
to  make  a  distinct  explanation  to  each  of  our  ministers  abroad.  I  send  you 
instead,  confidentially,  a  copy  of  my  last  despatch  on  this  subject  to  Mr. 
Dayton.  It  may  serve  as  a  guide  to  your  own  conduct  in  relation  to  the 
subject. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  Brussels. 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  15.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Brussels,  July  18,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatches  Nos. 
9,  10,  and  11,  under  dates  of  the  20th  and  22d  respectively. 

I  have  as  yet  received  no  reply  from  M.  de  Vriere  to  my  note  to  him  of 
the  5th  ultimo,  on  the  subject  of  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of  the  con¬ 
gress  of  Paris.  I  referred  to  it  a  few  days  since  on  the  occasion  of  a  visit 
to  the  foreign  office,  and  was  told  that  my  proposition  had  been  communi¬ 
cated  to  the  French  government,  and  that  communication  had  been  made  by 
it  to  this  government  of  the  main  points  of  the  note  addressed  by  M.  Thou- 
venel  to  M.  Mercier  in  the  month  of  May  upon  this  subject  of  neutral  rights. 
I  inferred  from  this  that  they  were  awaiting  the  result  of  the  communications 
made  to  you  b}r  the  French  and  English  governments  through  their  ministers 
at  Washington. 


46 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  will  take  an  early  opportunity  to  bring  the  subject  again  to  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  minister. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

H.  S.  SANFORD. 


Hon.  William  H  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  fyc.,  Sfc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  20.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  30,  1861. 

Sir  :  The  accompanying  transcript  of  an  instruction  to  our  minister  to 
Great  Britain,  dated  the  21st  instant,  and  numbered  42,  will  place  you  in 
possession  of  the  views  of  this  government  concerning  the  principle  of  the 
law  which  authorizes  the  President  to  close  the  ports  that  have  been  seized 
by  the  insurgents. 

1  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 
Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Brussels. 


Mr.  Sanford  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  16.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Brussels,  July  30,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  called  yesterday  at  the  department  of  foreign  affairs  to  press  again 
upon  the  attention  of  Baron  de  Vriere  the  proposition  of  adhesion  to  the 
declaration  of  Paris,  made  to  him  near  two  months  since,  and  he  being  out 
of  town,  I  saw  the  secretary  general,  who,  as  before  said,  replaces  the  min¬ 
ister  in  his  absence. 

In  reply  to  my  question  whether  the  government  had  come  to  any  decision, 
he  said  that  they  were  not  yet  sufficiently  informed  of  the  condition  of  this 
subject  at  other  courts  to  give  me  any  positive  answer  ;  that  while  he  would 
not  say  that  they  would  give  a  negative  one,  the  policy  and  acts  of  Belgium 
being,  as  I  was  aware,  doubtless  most  liberal,  yet  they  did  not  feel,  as  a 
smaller  power,  justified  in  taking  any  step  of  this  nature  in  advance  of  their 
neighbors. 

1  inquired  whether  there  was  any  other  objection  to  this  proposed  con¬ 
vention  than  he  had  indicated,  in  order  to  learn  whether  the  addition  of  the 
Marcy  proposition  was  considered  an  impediment.  He  said  he  was  not  pre¬ 
pared  to  give  any  other  ;  that  their  position  with  regard  to  neighboring 
powers,  to  whom  Belgium  owed,  in  one  sense,  her  nationality,  was  a  delicate 
one,  and  they  did  not  feel  authorized  to  take  any  initiative  in  negotiations 
of  this  character  ;  they  left  that  to  those  powers  who  must  necessarily  have 
a  controlling  influence  in  general  politics. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


0 

It  is  thus  evident  that  this  government  will  do  nothing  till  after  the  great 
powers  have  decided  upon  a  course  of  action  in  this  matter. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

H.  S.  SANFORD. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Sfc. 


P.  S. — I  open  my  despatch  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatches 
Nos.  12,  13,  and  14,  with  their  respective  enclosures,  which  will  have  imme¬ 
diate  action. 

H.  S.  S. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  22. J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  15,  dated  July  18,  has  been  received. 

There  is  no  especial  urgency  on  our  part  for  consideration  by  the  Belgium 
government  of  our  proposition  to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress 
of  Paris  before  the  similar  propositions  submitted  to  the  British  and  French 
governments  shall  have  been  acted  upon  by  them,  although  we  hold  our¬ 
selves  ready  to  carry  our  overtures  into  effect  when  the  Belgium  government 
shall  desire. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 
Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  fyc.,  Sfc.,  fyc.,  Brussels. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  23.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  12,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatch  dated  July  3  (No.  11)  has  been  received. 

I  am  quite  content,  under  existing  circumstances,  with  the  disposition 
you  propose  in  that  paper  to  make  of  the  subject  of  passports,  and  I  acqui¬ 
esce  very  cheerfully  in  the  views  which  you  take  of  the  importance  of  vigi¬ 
lance  in  regard  to  the  movements  of  disaffected  citizens  of  our  own  country 
travelling  in  Europe. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 
Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  §c.,  Brussels. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Sanford. 

No.  24.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  July  30  (No.  16)  has  been  received. 

I  am  not  disappointed,  nor  do  I  think  we  ought  to  be  dissatisfied,  with  Mr. 
de  Vriere’s  reply  to  your  inquiry  on  the  subject  of  maritime  relations. 


48 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Yon  are  so  frequently  at  Paris  and  London,  that  I  may  refer  you  to  the 
legations  at  one  of  those  places  for  the  latest  phase  of  our  negotiation  on 
the  same  subject  with  the  government  of  Great  Britain.  That  government 
having  taken  the  lead  in  determining  European  relations  to  us,  and  other 
powers  having  silently  acquiesced,  we  shall  hardly  expect  them  to  anti¬ 
cipate  her  own  final  decision  upon  the  case,  as  it  is  presented  to  all  alike. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Henry  S.  Sanford,  Esq.,  fyc ,  fyc.,  tye.f  Brussels. 


MEXICO. 


Mr.  Seward  lo  Mr.  Corwin. 


No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  April  6,  1861. 

Sir:  The  actual  condition  of  affairs  in  Mexico  is  so  imperfectly  understood 
here  that  the  President  finds  it  very  difficult  to  give  you  particular  and 
practical  directions  for  the  regulation  of  your  conduct  during  your  mission. 

Our  latest  information  was,  in  substance,  that  the  provisional  government 
of  President  Juarez,  so  long  confined  to  the  sea-coasts  of  the  country,  had 
finally  overthrown  its  adversaries  and  established  itself  at  the  capital;  that 
the  opposing  armies  had  been  demoralized  and  dispersed,  and  that  there  was 
no  longer  any  armed  resistance  in  the  States;  that  an  election  for  president 
had  been  held,  in  conformity  with  the  constitution  of  1851,  and  that  the  now 
provisional  president  had  probably  secured  a  majority  of  the  votes,  although 
the  result  was  as  yet  not  certainly  known.  The  pleasure  which  these  events 
have  inspired  is  unhappily  diminished  by  rumors  that  the  government  is 
wdthout  sufficient  authority  or  hold  on  the  public  confidence  to  maintain 
order;  that  robberies  are  of  frequent  occurrence  on  the  high  roads,  and  even 
that  a  member  of  our  late  legation  in  the  country  has  been  murdered  on  his 
way  from  the  city  of  Mexico  to  Vera  Cruz. 

You  will  appty  yourself  at  once,  with  energy  and  diligence,  to  investigate 
the  truth  of  this  last-mentioned  occurrence,  which,  if  found  to  have  been 
accurately  reported,  will  not  only  be  regarded  as  a  high  offence  against  the 
dignity  and  honor  of  the  United  States,  but  will  prove  a  severe  shock  to  the 
sensibilities  of  the  American  people. 

The  President  is  unable  to  conceive  that  any  satisfactory  explanation  of 
a  transaction  so  injurious  to  the  character  of  Mexico  can  be  made.  He 
will,  however,  wait  for  your  report  concerning  it,  though  with  the  deepest 
anxiety,  before  taking  action  upon  the  subject. 

1  find  the  archives  here  full  of  complaints  against  the  Mexican  govern¬ 
ment  for  violations  of  contracts  and  spoliations  and  cruelties  practiced 
against  American  citizens.  These  complaints  have  been  lodged  in  this  de¬ 
partment,  from  time  to  time,  during  the  long  reign  of  civil  war  in  which  the 
factions  of  Mexico  have  kept  that  country  involved,  with  a  view  to  having 
them  made  the  basis  of  demands  for  indemnity  and  satisfaction  whenever 
government  should  regain  in  that  country  sufficient  solidity  to  assume  a 
character  for  responsibility.  It  is  not  the  President’s  intention  to  send  for¬ 
ward  such  claims  at  the  present  moment.  He  willingly  defers  the  perform¬ 
ance  of  a  duty  which  at  any  time  would  seem  ungracious,  until  the  incoming 
administration  in  Mexico  shall  have  had  time,  if  possible,  to  cement  its 
authority  and  reduce  the  yet  disturbed  elements  of  society  to  order  and  har¬ 
mony.  You  will,  however,  be  expected,  in  some  manner  which  will  be 
marked  with  firmness  as  well  as  liberality,  to  keep  the  government  there  in 
mind  that  such  of  these  claims  as  shall  be  found  just  will,  in  due  time,  be 
presented  and  urged  upon  its  consideration. 

While  now,  as  heretofore,  it  is  a  duty  of  this  government  to  reason  with 


50 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


that  of  Mexico,  and  deprecate  a  continuance  of  the  chronic  reign  of  disorder 
there,  a  crisis  has  unhappily  arrived,  in  which  the  performance  of  this  duty 
is  embarrassed  by  the  occurrence  of  civil  commotions  in  our  own  country, 
by  which  Mexico,  in  consequence  of  her  proximity,  is  not  unlikely  to  be 
affected.  The  spirit  of  discontent  seems,  at  last,  to  have  crossed  the  border, 
and  to  be  engaged  in  an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  authority  of  this  govern¬ 
ment  in  some  parts  of  the  country  which  adjoin  the  Mexican  republic.  It  is 
much  to  be  feared  that  new  embarrassments  of  the  relations  of  the  two 
countries  will  happen  when  authority  so  long  prostrated  on  the  Mexican 
side  finds  the  power  of  the  United  States  temporarily  suspended  on  this  side 
of  the  frontier.  Whatever  evils  shall  thus  occur,  it  is  much  to  be  feared 
will  be  aggravated  by  the  intervention  of  the  Indians,  who  have  been 
heretofore  with  difficulty  restrained  from  violence,  even  while  the  federal 
authority  has  been  adequately  maintained. 

Both  of  the  governments  must  address  themselves  to  this  new  and  annoy¬ 
ing  condition  of  things,  with  common  dispositions  to  mitigate  its  evils  and 
abridge  its  duration  as  much  as  possible. 

The  President  does  not  expect  that  you  will  allude  to  the  origin  or  causes 
of  our  domestic  difficulties  in  your  intercourse  with  the  government  of 
Mexico,  although  that  government  will  rightfully  as  well  as  reasonably  ask 
what  are  his  expectations  of  their  course  and  their  end.  On  the  contrary, 
the  President  will  not  suffer  the  representatives  of  the  United  States  to 
engage  in  any  discussion  of  the  merits  of  those  difficultbs  in  the  presence 
of  foreign  powers,  much  less  to  invoke  even  their  censure  against  those 
of  our  fellow-citizens  who  have  arrayed  themselves  in  opposition  to  its 
authority. 

But  you  are  instructed  to  assure  the  government  of  Mexico  that  these 
difficulties,  having  arisen  out  of  no  deep  and  permanent  popular  discontent, 
either  in  regard  to  our  system  of  government  itself,  or  to  the  exercise  of  its 
authority,  and  being  attended  by  social  evils  which  are  as  ruinous  as  they 
are  unnecessary,  while  no  organic  change  that  is  contemplated  could  pos¬ 
sibly  bring  to  any  portion  of  the  American  people  any  advantages  of 
security,  peace,  prosperity,  or  happiness  equal  to  those  which  the  federal 
Union  so  effectually  guaranties,  the  President  confidently  believes  and 
expects  that  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  the  exercise  of  the  wisdom 
that  hitherto  has  never  failed  them,  will  speedily  and  in  a  constitutional 
way  adopt  all  necessary  remedies  for  the  restoration  of  the  public  peace 
and  the  preservation  of  the  federal  Union. 

The  success  of  this  government  in  conducting  affairs  to  that  consumma¬ 
tion  may  depend  in  some  small  degree  on  the  action  of  the  government  and 
people  of  Mexico  in  this  new  emergency.  The  President  could  not  fail  to 
see  that  Mexico,  instead  of  being  benefited  by  the  prostration  or  the 
obstruction  of  federal  authority  in  this  country,  would  be  exposed  by  it  to 
new  and  fearful  dangers.  On  the  other  hand,  a  condition  of  anarchy  in 
Mexico  must  necessarily  operate  as  a  seduction  to  those  who  are  conspiring 
against  the  integrity  of  the  Union  to  seek  strength  and  aggrandizement  for 
themselves  by  conquests  in  Mexico  and  other  parts  of  Spanish  America. 
Thus,  even  the  dullest  observer  is  at  last  able  to  see  what  was  long  ago 
distinctly  seen  by  those  who  are  endowed  wTith  any  considerable  per¬ 
spicacity,  that  peace,  order,  and  constitutional  authority  in  each  and  all  of 
the  several  republics  of  this  continent  are  not  exclusively  an  interest  of 
any  one  or  more  of  them,  but  a  common  and  indispensable  interest  of  them 
all. 

This  sentiment  will  serve  as  a  key  to  open  to  yon,  in  every  case,  the  pur¬ 
poses,  wishes,  and  expectations  of  the  President  in  regard  to  your  mission 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


51 


which,  I  hardly  need  to  say,  he  considers  at  this  juncture  perhaps  the  most 
interesting  and  important  one  within  the  whole  circle  of  our  international 
relations. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  does  not  know,  and  he  will  not  con¬ 
sent  to  know,  with  prejudice  or  undue  favor  any  political  party,  religious 
class,  or  sectional  interest  in  Mexico.  He  regrets  that  anything  should 
have  occurred  to  disturb  the  peaceful  and  friendly  relations  of  Mexico  with 
some  of  the  foreign  States  lately  represented  at  her  capital.  He  hopes 
most  sincerely  that  those  relations  may  be  everywhere  renewed  and  re¬ 
invigorated,  and  that  the  independence  and  sovereignty  of  Mexico  and  the 
government  which  her  people  seem  at  last  to  have  accepted,  after  so  many 
conflicts,  may  be  now  universally  acknowledged  and  respected. 

Taking  into  view  the  actual  condition  and  circumstances  of  Mexico,  as 
well  as  those  of  the  United  States,  the  President  is  fully  satisfied  that  the 
safety,  welfare,  and  happiness  of  the  latter  would  be  more  effectually  pro¬ 
moted  if  the  former  should  retain  its  complete  integrity  and  independence, 
than  they  could  be  by  any  dismemberment  of  Mexico,  with  a  transfer  or 
diminution  of  its  sovereignty,  even  though  thereby  a  portion  or  the  whole 
of  the  country  or  its  sovereignty  should  be  transferred  to  the  United  States 
themselves.  The  President  is  moreover  well  aware  that  the  ability  of  the 
government  and  people  of  Mexico  to  preserve  and  maintain  the  integrity 
and  the  sovereignty  of  the  republic  might  be  very  much  impaired,  under 
existing  circumstances,  by  hostile  or  unfriendly  action  on  the  part  of  the 
government  or  of  the  people  of  the  United  States.  If  he  needed  any  other 
incentive  to  practice  justice  and  equality  towards  Mexico,  it  would  be 
found  in  the  reflection  that  the  very  contention  and  strife  in  our  own 
country  which  at  this  moment  excite  so  much  domestic  disquietude  and 
so  much  surprise  throughout  a  large  part  of  the  world,  could  probably 
never  have  happened  if  Mexico  had  always  been  able  to  maintain  with  firm¬ 
ness  real  and  unquestioned  sovereignty  and  independence.  But  if  Mexico 
has  heretofore  been  more  unfortunate  in  these  respects  than  many  other 
modern  nations,  there  are  still  circumstances  in  her  case  which  justify  a 
hope  that  her  sad  experience  may  be  now  coming  to  an  end.  Mexico 
really  has,  or  ought  to  have,  no  enemies.  The  world  is  deeply  interested  in 
the  development  of  her  agricultural,  and  especially  her  mineral  and  com¬ 
mercial,  resources,  while  it  holds  in  high  respect  the  simple  virtues  and 
heroism  of  her  people,  and,  above  all,  their  inextinguishable  love  of  civil 
liberty. 

The  President,  therefore,  will  use  all  proper  influence  to  favor  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  order  and  authority  in  Mexico,  and,  so  far  as  it  may  be  in  his  power, 
he  will  prevent  incursions  and  every  other  form  of  aggression  by  citizens 
of  the  United  States  against  Mexico.  But  he  enjoins  you  to  employ  your 
best  efforts  in  convincing  the  government  of  Mexico  and  even  the  people, 
if,  with  its  approval,  you  can  reach  them,  that  the  surest  guaranty  of  their 
safety  against  such  aggressions  is  to  be  found  in  a  permanent  restoration 
of  the  authority  of  that  government.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  it  shall  appear 
in  the  sequel  that  the  Mexican  people  are  only  now  resting  a  brief  season 
to  recover  their  wasted  energies  sufficiently  to  lacerate  themselves  with 
new  domestic  conflicts,  then  it  is  to  be  feared  that  not  oidy  the  government 
of  the  United  States  but  many  other  governments  will  find  it  impossible  to 
prevent  a  resort  to  that  magnificent  country  of  a  class  of  persons,  unhappily 
too  numerous  everywhere,  who  are  accustomed  to  suppose  that  visionary 
schemes  of  public  interest,  aggrandizement,  or  reform  will  justify  eveD 
lawless  invasion  and  aggression. 

In  connexion  with  this  point  it  is  proper  that  you  should  be  informed  that 


52 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


the  Mexican  government  has,  through  its  representative  here,  recently  com¬ 
plained  of  an  apprehended  attempt  at  invasion  of  the  State  of  Sonora  by 
citizens  of  California,  acting,  as  is  alleged,  with  the  knowledge  and  consent 
of  some  of  the  public  authorities  in  that  State.  You  will  assure  the  Mexican 
government  that,  due  care  being  first  taken  to  verify  the  facts  thus  pre¬ 
sented,  effective  means  shall  be  adopted  to  put  our  neutrality  laws  into 
activity. 

The  same  representative  has  also  expressed  to  the  President  an  appre¬ 
hension  that  the  removal  of  the  federal  troops  from  the  Texan  border  may 
be  followed  by  outbreaks  and  violence  there.  There  is,  perhaps,  too  much 
ground  for  this  apprehension.  Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  forsee  the  course 
of  the  attempts  which  are  taking  place  in  that  region  to  subvert  the  proper 
authority  of  this  government.  The  President,  however,  meantime  directs 
you  to  assure  the  Mexican  government  that  due  attention  shall  be  bestowed 
on  the  condition  of  the  frontier,  with  a  view  to  the  preservation  and  safety 
of  the  peaceable  inhabitants  residing  there.  He  hopes  and  trusts  that 
equal  attention  will  be  given  to  this  important  subject  by  the  authorities  of 
Mexico. 

These  matters,  grave  and  urgent  as  they  are,  must  not  altogether  with¬ 
draw  our  attention  from  others  to  which  I  have  already  incidentally  alluded, 
but  which  require  more  explicit  discussion. 

For  a  few  years  past,  the  condition  of  Mexico  has  been  so  unsettled  as  to 
raise  the  question  on  both  sides  cf  the  Atlantic  whether  the  time  has  not 
come  when  some  foreign  power  ought,  in  the  general  interest  of  society,  to 
intervene  to  establish  a  protectorate  or  some  other  form  of  government  in 
that  country  and  guaranty  its  continuance  there.  Such  schemes  may  even 
now  be  held  under  consideration  by  some  European  nations,  and  there  is 
also  some  reason  to  believe  that  designs  have  been  conceived  in  some  parts 
of  the  United  States  to  effect  either  a  partial  dismemberment  or  a  complete 
overthrow  of  the  Mexican  government,  with  a  view  to  extend  over  it  the 
authority  of  the  newly  projected  confederacy,  which  a  discontented  part  of  our 
people  are  attempting  to  establish  in  the  southern  part  of  our  own  country 
You  may  possibly  meet  agents  of  this  projected  confederacy,  busy  in 
preparing  some  further  revolution  in  Mexico.  You  will  not  fail  to  assure 
the  government  of  Mexico  that  the  President  neither  has,  nor  can  ever  have, 
any  sympathy  with  such  designs,  in  whatever  quarter  they  may  arise  or 
whatever  character  they  may  take  on. 

In  view  of  the  prevailing  temper  and  political  habits  and  opinions  of  the 
Mexican  people,  the  President  can  scarcely  believe  that  the  disaffected 
citizens  of  our  own  country,  who  are  now  attempting  a  dismemberment  of 
the  American  Union,  will  hope  to  induce  Mexico  to  aid  them  by  recognizing 
the  assumed  independence  which  they  have  proclaimed,  because  it  seems 
manifest  to  him  that  such  an  organization  of  a  distinct  government  over 
that  part  of  the  present  Union  which  adjoins  Mexico  would,  if  possible,  be 
fraught  with  evils  to  that  country  more  intolerable  than  any  which  the  suc¬ 
cess  of  those  desperate  measures  could  inflict  even  upon  the  United  States. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  manifest  that  the  existing  political  organization  in 
this  country  affords  the  surest  guaranty  Mexico  can  have  that  her  integrity, 
union,  and  independence  will  be  respected  by  the  whole  people  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  Union. 

The  President,  however,  expects  that  you  will  be  watchful  of  such  designs 
as  I  have  thus  described,  however  improbable  they  may  seem,  and  that  you 
will  use  the  most  effective  measures  in  your  power  to  counteract  any  recog¬ 
nition  of  the  projected  Confederate  States  by  the  Mexican  government,  if  it 
shall  be  solicited. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


53 


Your  large  acquaintance  with  the  character  of  the  Mexican  people,  their 
interests  and  their  policy,  will  suggest  many  proper  arguments  against  such 
a  measure,  if  any  are  needful  beyond  the  intimations  I  have  already  given. 

In  conclusion,  the  President,  as  you  are  well  aware,  is  of  opinion  that, 
alienated  from  the  United  States  as  the  Spanish  American  republics  have 
been  for  some  time  past — largely,  perhaps,  by  reason  of  errors  and  preju¬ 
dices  peculiar  to  themselves,  and  yet  not  altogether  without  fault  on  our 
own  part — that  those  States  and  the  United  States  nevertheless,  in  some 
respects,  hold  a  common  attitude  and  relation  towards  all  other  nations; 
that  it  is  the  interest  of  them  all  to  be  friends  as  they  are  neighbors,  and 
to  mutually  maintain  and  support  each  other  so  far  as  may  be  consistent 
with  the  individual  sovereignty  which  each  of  them  rightly  enjoys,  equally 
against  all  disintegrating  agencies  within  and  all  foreign  influences  or 
power  without  their  borders. 

The  President  never  for  a  moment  doubts  that  the  republican  system  is 
to  pass  safely  through  all  ordeals  and  prove  a  permanent  success  in  our 
own  country,  and  so  to  be  commended  to  adoption  by  all  other  nations. 
But  he  thinks  also  that  that  system  everywhere  has  to  make  its  way  pain¬ 
fully  through  difficulties  and  embarrassments,  which  result  from  the  action 
of  antagonistical  elements  which  are  a  legacy  of  former  times  and  very 
different  institutions.  The  President  is  hopeful  of  the  ultimate  triumph  of 
this  system  over  all  obstacles,  as  well  in  regard  to  Mexico  as  in  regard  to 
every  other  American  State;  but  he  feels  that  those  States  are  nevertheless 
justly  entitled  to  a  greater  forbearance  and  more  generous  sympathies  from 
the  government  and  people  of  the  United  States  than  the}^  are  likely  to 
receive  in  any  other  quarter. 

The  President  trusts  that  your  mission,  manifesting  these  sentiments,* 
will  reassure  the  government  of  Mexico  of  his  best  disposition  to  favor  their 
commerce  and  their  internal  improvements.  He  hopes,  indeed,  that  your 
mission,  assuming  a  spirit  more  elevated  than  one  of  merely  commerce  and 
conventional  amity,  a  spirit  disinterested  and  unambitious,  earnestly 
American  in  the  continental  sense  of  the  word,  and  fraternal  in  no  affected 
or  mere  diplomatic  meaning  of  the  term,  while  it  shall  secure  the  confidence 
and  good  will  of  the  government  of  Mexico,  will  mark  the  inauguration  of  a 
new  condition  of  things  directly  conducive  to  the  prosperity  and  happiness 
of  both  nations,  and  ultimately  auspicious  to  all  other  republican  States 
throughout  the  world. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Thomas  Corwin,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Corwin  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  1.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

City  of  Mexico,  May  29,  1861. 

I  deem  it  of  the  very  first  importance  that  our  consuls  at  every  port  on 
the  Gulf  of  Mexico  should  be  at  their  respective  posts,  with  careful  and 
specific  instructions  as  to  their  treatment  of  vessels  sailing  under  the  flag 
of  the  Confederate  States,  or  having  papers  from  ports  within  those  States, 
made  out  by  officers  under  their  authority. 


54 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Should  the  relations  now  existing,  or  which  may  hereafter  exist,  between 
the  United  States  and  the  seceding  States  be  such  as  to  require  of  me  any 
specific  act  in  relation  to  such  state  of  things,  I  beg  to  be  advised  of  it  by 
the  department  as  early  as  possible. 

The  present  government  of  Mexico  is  well  affected  towards  us  in  our 
present  difficulties,  but,  for  obvious  reasons,  will  be  unwilling  to  enter  into 
any  engagement  which  might  produce  war  with  the  south,  unless  protected 
by  promise  of  aid  from  the  United  States. 

******** 


I  am,  Ac., 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


THOMAS  CORWIN. 


Mr.  Corwin  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  2.  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Mexico,  June  29,  1861. 

felR!  ******** 

The  present  time  is  most  propitious  for  securing  the  advantages  and 
preventing  the  evils  which  I  have  suggested.  The  government  here  feels 

the  strongest  sympathy  with  the  United  States. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

It  has  been  my  constant  endeavor  since  my  arrival  here  to  possess  the 
Mexican  mind  of  the  true  causes  of  our  difficulties,  and  thus  enable  them  to 
estimate  the  danger  to  this  republic  which  will  result  from  any  unfavorable 
termination  of  them.  I  am  quite  sure  that  whilst  this  government  will 
endeavor  to  preserve  peaceful  relations  with  all  the  European  powers  on 
fair  terms,  it  regards  the  United  States  as  its  true  and  onlv  reliable  friend 
in  any  struggle  which  may  involve  the  national  existence.  That  this 
should  be  so  is  somewhat  remarkable,  when  we  regard  the  deep  prejudices 
engendered  in  the  general  Mexican  mind  by  the  loss  of  Texas,  which  they 
attribute  to  our  citizens,  and  the  compulsory  cession  of  territory  which  was 

a  consequence  of  our  war  with  them. 

******** 

I  am,  &c., 

THOMAS  CORWIN. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  U.  S.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


GREAT  BRITAIN. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  April  10,  1861. 

Sir:  Although  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  possess  adjacent  do¬ 
minions  of  large  extent,  and  although  they  divide,  not  very  unequally,  a 
considerable  portion  of  the  commerce  of  the  world,  yet  there  are  at  present 
only  two  questions  in  debate  between  them.  One  of  these  concerns  the 
line  of  boundary  running  through  Puget’s  Sound,  and  involves  the  title  to 
the  island  of  San  Juan.  The  other  relates  to  a  proposition  for  extinguishing 
the  interest  of  the  Hudson’s  Bay  and  Puget’s  Sound  agricultural  companies 
in  the  Territory  of  Washington.  The  discussion  of  these  questions  has 
hitherto  been  carried  on  here,  and  there  is  no  necessity  for  removing  it  to 
London.  It  is  expected  to  proceed  amicably  and  result  in  satisfactory  con¬ 
clusions.  It  would  seem,  therefore,  on  first  thought,  that  you  would  find 
nothing  more  to  do  in  England  than  to  observe  and  report  current  events, 
and  to  cultivate  friendly  sentiments  there  towards  the  United  States.  Never¬ 
theless,  the  peculiar  condition  of  our  country  in  the  present  juncture 
renders  these  duties  a  task  of  considerable  delicacy. 

You  will  readily  understand  me  as  alluding  to  the  attempts  which  are 
being  made  by  a  misguided  portion  of  our  fellow  citizens  to  detach  some  of 
the  States  and  to  combine  them  in  a  new  organization  under  the  name  of 
the  Confederate  States  of  America.  The  agitators  in  this  bad  enterprise, 
justly  estimating  the  influence  of  the  European  powers  upon  even  American 
affairs,  do  not  mistake  in  supposing  that  it  would  derive  signal  advantage 
from  a  recognition  by  any  of  those  powers,  and  especially  Great  Britain. 
Your  task,  therefore,  apparently  so  simple  and  easy,  involves  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  preventing  the  commission  of  an  act  by  the  government  of  that 
country  which  would  be  fraught  with  disaster,  perhaps  ruin,  to  our  own. 

It  is  by  no  means  easy  to  give  you  instructions.  They  must  be  based  on 
a  survey  of  the  condition  of  the  country,  and  include  a  statement  of  the 
policy  of  the  government.  The  insurrectionary  movement,  though  rapid  in 
its  progress,  is  slow  in  revealing  its  permanent  character.  Only  outlines 
of  a  policy  can  be  drawn  which  must  largely  depend  on  uncertain  events. 

The  presidential  election  took  place  on  the  6th  of  November  last.  The 
canvass  had  been  conducted  in  all  the  southern  or  slave  States  in  such  a 
manner  as  to  prevent  a  perfectly  candid  hearing  there  of  the  issue  involved, 
and  so  all  the  parties  existing  there  were  surprised  and  disappointed  in  the 
marked  result.  That  disappointment  was  quickly  seized  for  desperate  pur¬ 
poses  by  a  class  of  persons  until  that  time  powerless,  who  had  long  cher¬ 
ished  a  design  to  dismember  the  Union  and  build  up  a  new  confederacy 
around  the  Gulf  of  Mexico.  Ambitious  leaders  hurried  the  people  forward, 
in  a  factious  course,  observing  conventional  forms  but  violating  altogether 
the  deliberative  spirit  of  their  constitutions.  When  the  new  federal  admin¬ 
istration  came  in  on  the  4th  of  March  last,  it  found  itself  confronted  by  an 


56 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


insurrectionary  combination  of  seven  States,  practicing  an  insidious  strategy 
to  seduce  eight  other  States  into  its  councils. 

One  needs  to  be  as  conversant  with  our  federative  system  as  perhaps 
only  American  publicists  can  be  to  understand  how  effectually,  in  the  first 
instance,  such  a  revolutionary  movement  must  demoralize  the  general  gov¬ 
ernment.  We  are  not  only  a  nation,  but  we  are  States  also.  All  public 
officers,  as  well  as  all  citizens,  owe  not  only  allegiance  to  the  Union  but 
allegiance  also  to  the  States  in  which  they  reside.  In  the  more  discontented 
States  the  local  magistrates  and  other  officers  cast  off  at  once  their  federal 
allegiance,  and  conventions  were  held  which  assumed  to  absolve  their  citi¬ 
zens  from  the  same  obligation.  Even  federal  judges,  marshals,  clerks,  and 
revenue  officers  resigned  their  trusts.  Intimidation  deterred  loyal  persons 
from  accepting  the  offices  thus  rendered  vacant.  So  the  most  important 
faculties  of  the  federal  government  in  those  States  abruptly  ceased.  The 
resigning  federal  agents,  if  the  expression  may  be  used,  attorned  to  the 
revolutionary  authorities  and  delivered  up  to  them  public  funds  and  other 
property  and  possessions  of  large  value.  The  federal  government  had, 
through  a  long  series  of  years,  been  engaged  in  building  strong  fortifica¬ 
tions,  a  navy  yard,  arsenals,  mints,  treasuries,  and  other  public  edifices,  not 
in  any  case  for  use  against  those  States,  but  chiefly  for  their  protection  and 
convenience.  These  had  been  unsuspectingly  left  either  altogether  or  im¬ 
perfectly  garrisoned  or  guarded,  and  they  fell,  witli  little  resistance,  into 
the  hands  of  the  revolutionary  party.  A  general  officer  of  the  army  gave 
up  to  them  a  large  quantity  of  military  stores  and  other  property,  disbanded 
the  troops  under  his  command,  and  sent  them  out  of  the  territory  of  the 
disaffected  States. 

It  may  be  stated,  perhaps  without  giving  just  offence,  that  the  most  pop¬ 
ular  motive  in  these  discontents  was  an  apprehension  of  designs  on  the 
part  of  the  incoming  federal  administration  hostile  to  the  institution  of 
domestic  slavery  in  the  States  where  it  is  tolerated  by  the  local  constitutions 
and  laws.  That  institution  and  the  class  which  especially  cherishes  it  are 
not  confined  to  the  States  which  have  revolted,  but  they  exist  in  the  eight 
other  so-called  slave  States;  and  these,  for  that  reason,  sympathize  pro¬ 
foundly  witli  the  revolutionary  movement.  Sympathies  and  apprehensions 
of  this  kind  have,  for  an  indefinite  period,  entered  into  the  bases  of  political 
parties  throughout  the  whole  country,  and  thus  considerable  masses  of 
persons,  whose  ultimate  loyalty  could  not  be  doubted,  were  found,  even  in 
the  free  States,  either  justifying,  excusing,  or  palliating  the  movement 
towards  disunion  in  the  seceding  States.  The  party  which  was  dominant 
in  the  federal  government  during  the  period  of  the  last  administration 
embraced,  practically,  and  held  in  unreserved  communion,  all  disunionists 
and  sympathizers.  It  held  the  executive  administration.  The  Secretaries 
of  the  Treasury,  War,  and  the  Interior  were  disunionists.  The  same  party 
held  a  large  majority  of  the  Senate,  and  nearly  equally  divided  the  House 
of  Representatives.  Disaffection  lurked,  if  it  did  not  openly  avow  itself, 
in  every  department  and  in  every  bureau,  in  every  regiment  and  in  every 
ship-of-war;  in  the  post  office  and  in  the  custom-house,  and  in  every  legation 
and  consulate  from  London  to  Calcutta.  Of  four  thousand  four  hundred 
and  seventy  officers  in  the  public  service,  civil  and  military,  two  thousand 
one  hundred  and  fifty-four  were  representatives  of  States  where  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  movement  was  openly  advocated  and  urged,  even  if  not  actually 
organized.  Our  system  being  so  completely  federative  and  representative, 
no  provision  had  ever  been  made,  perhaps  none  ever  could  have  been  made, 
to  anticipate  this  strange  and  unprecedented  disturbance.  The  people  were 
shocked  by  successive  and  astounding  developments  of  what  the  statute 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


57 


book  distinctly  pronounced  to  be  sedition  and  treason,  but  the  magistracy 
was  demoralized  and  the  laws  were  powerless.  By  degrees,  however,  a 
better  sentiment  revealed  itself.  The  executive  administration  hesitatingly, 
in  part,  reformed  itself.  The  capital  was  garrisoned;  the  new  President 
came  in  unresisted,  and  soon  constituted  a  new  and  purely  lo}Tal  adminis¬ 
tration.  They  found  the  disunionists  perseveringly  engaged  in  raising 
armies  and  laying  sieges  around  national  fortifications  situate  within  the 
territory  of  the  disaffected  States.  The  federal  marine  seemed  to  have 
been  scattered  everywhere  except  where  its  presence  was  necessary,  and 
such  of  the  military  forces  as  were  not  in  the  remote  States  and  Territories 
were  held  back  from  activity  by  vague  and  mysterious  armistices  which 
had  been  informally  contracted  by  the  late  President,  or  under  his  authority, 
with  a  view  to  postpone  conflict  until  impracticable  concessions  to  disunion 
should  be  made  by  Congress,  or  at  least  until  the  waning  term  of  his  ad¬ 
ministration  should  reach  its  appointed  end.  Commissioners  who  had  been 
sent  by  the  new  confederacy  were  already  at  the  capital  demanding  recog¬ 
nition  of  its  sovereignty  and  a  partition  of  the  national  property  and 
domain.  The  treasury,  depleted  by  robbery  and  peculation,  was  exhausted, 
and  the  public  credit  was  prostrate. 

It  would  be  very  unjust  to  the  American  people  to  suppose  that  this  sin¬ 
gular  and  unhappy  condition  of  things  indicated  any  extreme  favor  or 
toleration  of  the  purpose  of  a  permanent  dissolution  of  the  Union.  On  the 
contrary,  disunion  at  the  very  first  took  on  a  specious  form,  and  it  after- 
. wards  made  its  way  by  ingenious  and  seductive  devices.  It  inculcated 
that  the  Union  is  a  purely  voluntary  connexion,  founded  on  the  revocable 
assent  of  the  several  States  ;  that  secession,  in  the  case  of  great  popular 
discontent,  would  induce  consultation  and  reconciliation,  and  so  that  revo¬ 
lution,  instead  of  being  war, 'is  peace,  and  disunion,  instead  of  being  dis¬ 
solution,  is  union.  Though  the  ordinances  of  secession  in  the  seceding  States 
were  carried  through  impetuously,  without  deliberation,  and  even  by  ques¬ 
tionable  majorities,  yet  it  was  plausibly  urged  that  the  citizens  who  had 
remained  loyal  to  the  Union  might  wisely  acquiesce,  so  as  ultimately  to 
moderate  and  control  the  movement,  and  in  any  event  that  if  war  should 
ensue,  it  would  become  a  war  of  sections,  and  not  a  social  war,  of  ail 
others,  and  especially  in  those  States,  the  form  of  war  most  seriously  to  be 
deprecated.  It  being  assumed  that  peaceful  separation  is  in  harmony  with  the 
Constitution,  it  was  urged  as  a  consequence  that  coercion  would,  therefore, 
be  unlawful  and  tyrannical  ;  and  this  principle  was  even  pushed  so  far  as 
to  make  the  defensive  retaining  by  the  federal  government  of  its  position 
within  the  limits  of  the  seceding  States,  or  where  it  might  seem  to  overawe 
or  intimidate  them,  an  act  of  such  forbidden  coercion.  Thus  it  happened 
that  for  a  long  time,  and  in  very  extensive  districts  even,  fidelity  to  the 
Union  manifested  itself  by  demanding  a  surrender  of  its  powers  and  pos¬ 
sessions,  and  compromises  with  or  immunity  towards  those  who  were 
engaged  in  overthrowing  it  by  armed  force.  Disunion  under  these  circum¬ 
stances  rapidly  matured.  On  the  other  hand,  the  country  was  bewildered. 
For  the  moment  even  loyal  citizens  fell  naturally  into  the  error  of  inquiring 
how  the  fearful  state  of  things  had  come  about,  and  who  was  responsible  for 
it,  thus  inviting  a  continuance  of  the  controversy  out  of  which  it  had  arisen, 
rather  than  rallying  to  the  duty  of  arresting  it.  Disunion,  sustained  only 
by  passion,  made  haste  to  attain  its  end.  Union,  on  the  contrary,  required 
time,  because  it  could  only  appeal  to  reason,  and  reason  could  not  be  heard 
until  excitemeut  should  in  some  degree  subside.  Military  spirit  is  an 
element  always  ready  for  revolution.  It  has  a  fuller  development  in  the 
disaffected  than  in  the  loyal  States.  Thousands  of  men  have  already  banded 


58 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


themselves  as  soldiers  in  the  cause  of  disunion,  while  the  defenders  of  the 
Union,  before  resorting  to  arms,  everywhere  wait  to  make  sure  that  it 
cannot  be  otherwise  preserved.  Even  this  cautious  and  pacific,  yet  patriotic 
disposition  has  been  misunderstood  and  perverted  by  faction  to  encourage 
disunion. 

I  believe  that  I  have  thus  presented  the  disunion  movement  dispassion¬ 
ately  and  without  misrepresenting  its  proportions  or  its  character. 

You  will  hardly  be  asked  by  responsible  statesmen  abroad  why  has  not 
the  new  administration  already  suppressed  the  revolution.  Thirty-five  days 
are  a  short  period  in  which  to  repress,  chiefly  by  moral  means,  a  movement 
which  is  so  active  while  disclosing  itself  throughout  an  empire. 

You  will  not  be  expected  to  promulgate  this  history,  or  to  communicate 
it  to  the  British  government,  but  you  are  entitled  to  the  President’s  views, 
which  I  have  thus  set  forth  in  order  to  enable  you  to  understand  the  policy 
which  he  proposes  to  pursue,  and  to  conform  your  own  action  to  it. 

The  President  neither  looks  for  nor  apprehends  any  actual  and  permanent 
dismemberment  of  the  American  Union,  especially  by  a  line  of  latitude. 
The  improvement  of  our  many  channels  of  intercourse,  and  the  perfection  of 
our  scheme  of  internal  exchanges,  and  the  incorporation  of  both  of  them 
into  a  great  system  of  foreign  commerce,  concurring  with  the  gradual 
abatement  of  the  force  of  the  only  existing  cause  of  alienation,  have  carried 
us  already  beyond  the  danger  of  disunion  in  that  form.  The  so-called  Con¬ 
federate  States,  therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President,  are  attempting 
what  will  prove  a  physical  impossibility.  Necessarily  they  build  the 
structure  of  their  new  government  upon  the  same  principle  by  which  they 
seek  to  destroy  the  Union,  namely,  the  right  of  each  individual  member  of 
the  confederacy  to  withdraw  from  it  at  pleasure  and  in  peace.  A  govern¬ 
ment  thus  constituted  could  neither  attain  the  consolidation  necessary  for 
stability,  nor  guaranty  any  engagements  it  might  make  with  creditors  or 
other  nations.  The  movement,  therefore,  in  the  opinion  of  the  President, 
tends  directly  to  anarchy  in  the  seceding  States,  as  similar  movements  in 
similar  circumstances  have  already  resulted  in  Spanish  America,  and  espe- 
ciall}7  in  Mexico.  He  believes,  nevertheless,  that  the  citizens  of  those  States, 
as  well  as  the  citizens  of  the  other  States,  are  too  intelligent,  considerate, 
and  wise  to  follow  the  leaders  to  that  disastrous  end.  For  these  reasons 
he  would  not  be  disposed  to  reject  a  cardinal  dogma  of  theirs,  namely,  that 
the  federal  government  could  not  reduce  the  seceding-  States  to  obedience 
by  conquest,  even  although  he  were  disposed  to  question  that  proposition. 
But,  in  fact,  the  President  willingly  accepts  it  as  true.  Only  an  imperial 
or  despotic  government  could  subjugate  thoroughly  disaffected  and  insur¬ 
rectionary  members  of  the  State.  This  federal  republican  system  of  ours  is 
of  all  forms  of  government  the  very  one  which  is  most  unfitted  for  such  a 
labor.  Happily,  however,  this  is  only  an  imaginary  defect.  The  system 
has  within  itself  adequate,  peaceful,  conservative,  and  recuperative  forces. 
Firmness  on  the  part  of  the  government  in  maintaining  and  preserving  the 
public  institutions  and  property,  and  in  executing  the  laws  where  authority 
can  be  exercised  without  waging  war,  combined  with  such  measures  of 
justice,  moderation,  and  forbearance  as  will  disarm  reasoning  opposition, 
will  be  sufficient  to  secure  the  public  safety  until  returning  reflection,  con¬ 
curring  with  the  fearful  experience  of  social  evils,  the  inevitable  fruits  of 
faction,  shall  bring  the  recusant  members  cheerfully  back  into  the  family, 
which,  after  all,  must  prove  their  best  and  happiest,  as  it  undeniably  is 
their  most  natural  home.  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  provides 
for  that  return  by  authorizing  Congress,  on  application  to  be  made  by  a 
certain  majority  of  the  States,  to  assemble  a  national  convention,  in  which 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


59 


the  organic  law  can,  if  it  be  needful,  be  revised  so  as  to  remove  all  real 
obstacles  to  a  reunion,  so  suitable  to  the  habits  of  the  people,  and  so 
eminently  conducive  to  the  common  safety  and  welfare. 

Keeping  that  remedy  steadily  in  view,  the  President,  on  the  one  hand,  will 
not  suffer  the  federal  authority  to  fall  into  abeyance,  nor  will  he,  on  the 
other,  aggravate  existing  evils  by  attempts  at  coercion  which  must  assume 
the  form  of  direct  war  against  any  of  the  revolutionary  States.  If,  while 
he  is  pursuing  this  course,  commended  as  it  is  by  prudence  as  well  as 
patriotism,  the  scourge  of  civil  war  for  the  first  time  in  our  history  must 
fall  upon  our  country  during  the  term  of  his  administration,  that  calamity 
will  then  have  come  through  the  agency,  not  of  the  government,  but  of 
those  who  shall  have  chosen  to  be  its  armed,  open,  and  irreconcilable  enemies; 
and  he  will  not  suffer  himself  to  doubt  that  when  the  value  of  the  imperilled 
Union  shall  be  brought  in  that  fearful  manner  home  to  the  business  and  the 
bosoms  of  the  American  people,  they  will,  with  an  unanimity  that  shall 
vindicate,  their  wisdom  and  their  virtue,  rise  up  and  save  it. 

It  does  not,  however,  at  all  surprise  the  President  that  the  confidence  in 
the  stability  of  the  Union,  which  has  been  heretofore  so  universally  enter¬ 
tained,  has  been  violently  shocked  both  at  home  and  abroad.  Surprise  and 
fear  invariably  go  together.  The  period  of  four  months  which  intervened 
between  the  election  which  designated  the  head  of  the  new  administration 
and  its  advent,  as  has  already  been  shown,  assumed  the  character  of  an  in¬ 
terregnum,  in  which  not  only  were  the  powers  of  the  government  paralyzed, 
but  even  its  resources  seemed  to  disappear  and  be  forgotten. 

Nevertheless,  all  the  world  know  what  are  the  resources  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  they  are  practically  unencumbered  as  well  as  inexhaustible. 
It  would  be  easy,  if  it  would  not  seem  invidious,  to  show  that  whatever 
may  be  the  full  development  of  the  disunion  movement,  those  resources 
will  not  be  seriously  diminished,  and  that  the  revenues  and  credit  of  the 
Union,  unsurpassed  in  any  other  country,  are  adequate  to  every  emergency 
that  can  occur  in  our  own.  Nor  will  the  political  commotions  which  await 
us  sensibly  disturb  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  stability  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  It  has  been  necessary  for  us  to  learn,  perhaps  the  instruction  has 
not  come  too  soon,  that  vicissitudes  are  incident  to  our  system  and  our 
country,  as  they  are  to  all  others.  The  panic  which  that  instruction  naturally 
produced  is  nearly  past.  What  has  hitherto  been  most  needful  for  the  rein- 
vigoration  of  authority  is  already  occurring.  The  aiders,  abettors,  and 
sympathizers  with  disunion,  partly  by  their  own  choice  and  partly  through 
the  exercise  of  the  public  will,  are  falling  out  from  the  civil  departments  of 
the  government  as  well  as  from  the  army  and  the  navy.  The  national  legis¬ 
lature  will  no  longer  be  a  distracted  council.  Our  representatives  in  foreign 
courts  and  ports  will  henceforth  speak  only  the  language  of  loyalty  to  their 
country,  and  of  confidence  in  its  institutions  and  its  destiny. 

It  is  much  to  be  deplored  that  our  representatives  are  to  meet  abroad 
agents  of  disunion,  seeking  foreign  aid  to  effect  what,  unaided,  is  already 
seen  to  be  desperate.  You  need  not  be  informed  that  their  success  in  Great 
Britain  would  probably  render  their  success  easy  elsewhere.  The  President 
does  not  doubt  that  you  fully  appreciate  the  responsibility  of  your  mission. 
An  honored  ancestor  of  yours  was  the  first  to  represent  your  whole  country, 
after  its  independence  was  established,  at  the  same  court  to  which  you  now 
are  accredited.  The  President  feels  assured  that  it  will  happen  through  no 
want  of  loyalty  or  of  diligence  on  your  part  if  you  are  to  be  the  last  to  dis¬ 
charge  that  trust.  You  will  have  this  great  advantage,  that  from  the  hour 
when  that  country,  so  dear  to  us  all,  first  challenged  the  notice  of  nations, 
until  now,  it  has  continually  grown  in  their  sympathy  and  reverence. 


60 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Before  considering  the  arguments  you  are  to  use,  it  is  important  to  indi- 
dicate  those  which  you  are  not  to  employ  in  executing  that  mission: 

First.  The  President  has  noticed,  as  the  whole  American  people  have, 
with  much  emotion,  the  expressions  of  good  will  and  friendship  toward  the 
United  States,  and  of  concern  for  their  present  embarrassments,  which  have 
been  made  on  apt  occasions  by  her  Majesty  and  her  ministers,  You  will 
make  due  acknowledgment  for  these  manifestations,  but  at  the  same  time 
you  will  not  rely  on  any  mere  sympathies  or  national  kindness.  You  will 
make  no  admissions  of  weakness  in  our  Constitution,  or  of  apprehension 
on  the  part  of  the  government.  You  will  rather  prove,  as  you  easily  can, 
by  comparing  the  history  of  our  country  with  that  of  other  states,  that  its 
Constitution  and  government  are  really  the  strongest  and  surest  which  have 
ever  been  erected  for  the  safety  of  any  people.  You  will  in  no  case  listen 
to  any  suggestions  of  compromise  by  this  government,  under  foreign 
auspices,  with  its  discontented  citizens.  If,  as  the  President  does  not  at  all 
apprehend,  you  shall  unhappily  find  her  Majesty’s  government  tolerating  the 
application  of  the  so-called  seceding  States,  or  wavering  about  it,  you  will 
not  leave  them  to  suppose  for  a  moment  that  they  can  grant  that  applica¬ 
tion  and  remain  the  friends  of  the  United  States.  You  may  even  assure 
them  promptly  in  that  case  that  if  they  determine  to  recognize,  they  may  at 
the  same  time  prepare  to  enter  into  alliance  with  the  enemies  of  this  repub¬ 
lic.  You  alone  will  represent  your  country  at  London,  and  you  will  represent 
the  whole  of  it  there.  When  you  are  asked  to  divide  that  duty  with  others, 
diplomatic  relations  between  the  government  of  Great  Britain  and  this 
government  will  be  suspended,  and  will  remain  so  until  it  shall  be  seen 
which  of  the  two  is  most  strongly  entrenched  in  the  confidence  of  their 
respective,  nations  and  of  mankind. 

You  will  not  be  allowed,  however,  even  if  you  were  disposed,  as  the 
President  is  sure  }rou  will  not  be,  to  rest  your  opposition  to  the  application 
of  the  Confederate  States  on  the  ground  of  any  favor  this  administration,  or 
the  party  which  chiefly  called  it  into  existence,  proposes  to  show  to  Great 
Britain,  or  claims  that  Great  Britain  ought  to  show  to  them.  You  will  not 
consent  to  draw  into  debate  before  the  British  government  any  opposing 
moral  principles  which  may  be  supposed  to  lie  at  the  foundation  of  the  con¬ 
troversy  between  those  States  and  the  federal  Union 

You  will  indulge  in  no  expressions  of  harshness  or  disrespect,  or  even  impa¬ 
tience,  concerning  the  seceding  States,  their  agents,  or  their  people.  But  you 
will,  on  the  contrary,  all  the  while  remember  that  those  States  are  now,  as 
they  always  heretofore  have  been,  and,  notwithstanding  their  temporary 
self-delusion,  they  must  always  continue  to  be,  equal  and  honored  members 
of  this  federal  Union,  and  that  their  citizens  throughout  all  political  mis¬ 
understandings  and  alienations  still  are  and  always  must  be  our  kindred 
and  countrymen.  In  short,  all  your  arguments  must  belong  to  one  of  three 
classes,  namely  :  First.  Arguments  drawn  from  the  principles  of  public  law 
and  natural  justice,  which  regulate  the  intercourse  of  equal  States.  Second¬ 
ly.  Arguments  which  concern  equally  the  honor,  welfare,  and  happiness  of 
the  discontented  States,  and  the  honor,  welfare,  and  happiness  of  the  wdiole 
Union.  Thirdly.  Arguments  which  are  equally  conservative  of  the  rights 
and  interests,  and  even  sentiments  of  the  United  States,  and  just  in  their 
bearing  upon  the  rights,  interests,  and  sentiments  of  Great  Britain  and  all 
other  nations. 

AYe  freely  admit  that  a  nation  may,  and  even  ought,  to  recognize  a  new 
State  which  has  absolutely  and  beyond  question  effected  its  independence, 
and  permanently  established  its  sovereignty;  and  that  a  recognition  in  such 
a  case  affords  no  just  cause  of  offence  to  the  government  of  the  country 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


61 


from  which  the  new  State  has  so  detached  itself.  On  the  other  hand,  we 
insist  that  a  nation  that  recognizes  a  revolutionary  State,  with  a  view  10  aid 
its  effecting  its  sovereignty  and  independence,  commits  a  great  wrong 
against  the  nation  whose  integrity  is  thus  invaded,  and  makes  itself  respon¬ 
sible  for  a  just  and  ample  redress. 

I  will  not  stop  to  inquire  whether  it  may  not  sometimes  happen  that  an 
imperial  government  or  even  a  federative  one  may  not  so  oppress  or  aggrieve 
its  subjects  in  a  province  or  in  a  State  as  to  justify  intervention  on  the  plea 
of  humanity.  Her  Majesty’s  government,  however, will  not  make  a  pretence 
that  the  present  is  such  a  case.  The  United  States  have  existed  under  their 
present  form  of  government  seventy  and  more  years,  and  during  all  that 
time  not  one  human  life  has  been  taken  in  forfeiture  for  resistance  to  their 
authority.  It  must  be  the  verdict  of  history  that  no  government  so  just,  so 
equal,  and  so  humane,  has  ever  elsewhere  existed.  Even  the  present  disunion 
movement  is  confessedly  without  any  better  cause  than  an  apprehension  of 
dangers  which,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  government,  are  impossible; 
and  speculations  of  aggressions,  which  those  who  know  the  physical  and 
social  arrangements  of  this  continent  must  see  at  once  are  fallacious  and 


chimerical. 

The  disunionists  will,  I  am  sure,  take  no  such  ground.  They  will  appeal, 
not  to  the  justice,  or  to  the  magnanimity,  but  to  the  cupidity  and  caprice  of 
Great  Britain. 

It  cannot  need  many  words  to  show  that  even  in  that  form  their  appeal 
ought  to  be  promptly  dismissed.  I  am  aware  that  the  revenue  law  lately 
passed  by  Congress  is  vehemently  denounced  in  Great  Britain.  It  might 
be  enough  to  say  on  that  subject  that  as  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  are  equals  in  dignity,  and  not  unequal  in  astuteness  in  the  science 
and  practice  of  political  economy,  the  former  have  good  right  to  regard  only 
their  own  convenience,  and  consult  their  own  judgment  in  framing  their  rev¬ 
enue  laws.  But  there  are  some  points  in  this  connexion  which  you  may 
make  without  compromising  the  self-respect  of  this  government. 

In  the  circumstances  of  the  present  case,  it  is  clear  that  a  recognition  of 
the  so-called  Confederate  nations  must  be  deemed  equivalent  to  a  deliberate 
resolution  by  her  Majesty’s  government  that  this  American  Union, which  lias 
so  long  constituted  a  sovereign  nation,  shall  be  now  permanently  dissolved, 
and  cease  to  exist  forever.  The  excuse  for  this  resolution,  fraught,  if 
effectual,  with  fearful  and  enduring  consequences,  is  a  change  in  its  revenue 
laws — a  change  which,  because  of  its  very  nature,  as  well  as  by  reason  of 
the  ever-changing  course  of  public  sentiment,  must  necessarily  be  temporary 
and  ephemeral.  British  censors  tell  us  that  the  new  tariff  is  unwise  for  our¬ 
selves.  If  so,  it  will  speedily  be  repealed.  They  ;;ay  it  is  illiberal  and 
injurious  to  Great  Britain.  It  cannot  be  so  upon  her  principles  without 
being  also  injurious  to  ourselves,  and  in  that  case  it  will  be  promptly  re¬ 
pealed.  Besides,  there  certainly  are  other  and  more  friendly  remedies  for 
foreign  legislation  that  is  injurious  without  premeditated  purpose  of  injury, 
which  a  magnanimous  government  will  try  before  it  deliberately  seeks  the 
destruction  of  the  offended  nation. 

The  application  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  in  the  aspect  now 

under  consideration,  assumes  that  they  are  offering,  or  will  offer,  more 

liberal  commercial  facilities  than  the  United  States  can  or  will  be  disposed 
to  concede.  Would  it  not  be  wise  for  Great  Britain  to  wait  until  those 

liberal  facilities  shall  be  definitely  fixed  and  offered  by  the  Confederate 

States,  and  then  to  wait  further  and  see  whether  the  United  States  may  not 
accord  facilities  not  less  desirable  ? 

The  union  of  these  States  seventy  years  ago  established  perfectly7  free 


62 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


trade  between  the  several  States,  and  this,  in  effect,  is  free  trade  throughout 
the  largest  inhabitable  part  of  North  America.  During  all  that  time,  with 
occasional  and  very  brief  intervals,  not  affecting  the  result,  we  have  been 
constantly  increasing  in  commercial  liberality  towards  foreign  nations. 
We  have  made  that  advance  necessarily,  because,  with  increasing  liberal¬ 
ity,  we  have  at  the  same  time,  owing  to  controlling  causes,  continually 
augmented  our  revenues  and  increased  our  own  productions.  The  sagacity 
of  the  British  ‘government  cannot  allow  it  to  doubt  that  our  natural  course 
hereafter  in  this  respect  must  continue  to  be  the  same  as  heretofore. 

The  same  sagacity  may  be  trusted  to  decide,  first,  whether  the  so-called 
Confederate  States,  on  the  emergency  of  a  military  revolution,  and  having 
no  other  sources  of  revenue  than  duties  on  imports  and  exports  levied 
within  the  few  ports  they  can  command  without  a  naval  force,  are  likely  to 
be  able  to  persevere  in  practicing  the  commercial  liberality  they  proffer  as 
an  equivalent  for  recognition.  Manifestly,  moreover,  the  negotiation  which 
they  propose  to  open  with  Great  Britain  implies  that  peace  is  to  be  pre¬ 
served  while  the  new  commerce  goes  on.  The  sagacity  of  her  Majesty’s 
government  may  be  trusted  to  consider  whether  that  new  government  is 
likely  to  be  inaugurated  without  war,  and  whether  the  commerce  of  Great 
Britain  with  this  country  would  be  likely  to  be  improved  by  flagrant  war 
between  the  southern  and  northern  States. 

Again,  even  a  very  limited  examination  of  commercial  statistics  will  be  suf¬ 
ficient  to  show  that  while  the  staples  of  the  disaffected  States  do,  indeed,  as 
they  claim,  constitute  a  very  important  portion  of  the  exports  of  the  United 
States  to  European  countries,  a  very  large  portion  of  the  products  and 
fabrics  of  other  regions  consumed  in  those  States  are  derived,  and  must 
continue  to  be  derived,  not  from  Europe,  but  from  the  northern  States, 
while  the  chief  consumption  of  European  productions  and  fabrics  imported 
into  the  United  States  takes  place  in  these  same  States.  Great  Britain 
may,  if  her  government  think  best,  by  modifying  her  navigation  laws,  try 
to  change  these  great  features  of  American  commerce;  but  it  will  require 
something  more  than  acts  of  the  British  Parliament  and  of  the  proposed 
revolutionary  Congress  to  modify  a  commerce  that  takes  its  composite 
character  from  all  the  various  soils  and  climates  of  a  continent,  as  well  as 
from  the  diversified  institutions,  customs  and  dispositions  of  the  many  com¬ 
munities  which  inhabit  it. 

Once  more:  All  the  speculations  which  assume  that  the  revenue  law 
recently  passed  by  Congress  will  diminish  the  consumption  of  foreign 
fabrics  and  productions  in  the  United  states  are  entirely  erroneous.  The 
American  people  are  active,  industrious,  inventive,  and  energetic,  but  they 
are  not  penurious  or  sordid  They  are  engaged  with  wonderful  effect  in 
developing  the  mineral,  forest,  agricultural  and  pastoral  resources  of  a  vast 
and,  practically,  new  continent.  Their  wealth,  individual  as  well  as  public, 
increases  every  day  in  a  general  sense,  irrespective  of  the  revenue  laws  of 
the  United  States,  and  every  day  also  the  habit  of  liberal — not  to  say  pro¬ 
fuse — expenditure  grows  upon  them.  There  are  changes  in  the  nature  and 
character  of  imported  productions  which  they  consume,  but  practically  no 
decline  in  the  quantity  and  value  of  imports. 

It  remains  to  bring  out  distinctly  a  consideration  to  which  I  have  already 
adverted.  Great  Britain  has  within  the  last  forty-five  years  changed  char¬ 
acter  and  purpose.  She  has  become  a  power  for  production,  rather  than  a 
power  for  destruction.  She  is  committed,  as  it  seems  to  us,  to  a  policy  of 
industry,  not  of  ambition;  a  policy  of  peace,  not  of  war.  One  has  only  to 
compare  her  present  domestic  condition  with  that  of  any  former  period  to 
see  that  this  new  career  on  which  she  has  entered  is  as  wise  as  it  is 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


63 


humane  and  beneficent.  Her  success  in  this  career  requires  peace  through¬ 
out  the  civilized  world,  and  nowhere  so  much  as  on  this  continent.  Kecog- 
nition  by  her  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  would  be  intervention  and  war 
in  this  country.  Permanent  dismemberment  of  the  American  Union  in  conse¬ 
quence  of  that  intervention  would  be  perpetual  war — civil  war.  The  new 
confederacy  which  in  that  case  Great  Britain  would  have  aided  into  exist¬ 
ence  must,  like  any  other  new  state,  seek  to  expand  itself  northward,  west¬ 
ward,  and  southward.  What  part  of  this  continent  or  of  the  adjacent 
islands  would  be  expected  to  remain  in  peace? 

The  President  would  regard  it  as  inconsistent  with  his  habitually  high 
consideration  for  the  government  and  people  of  Great  Britain  to  allow  me 
to  dwell  longer  on  the  merely  commercial  aspects  of  the  question  under 
discussion.  Indeed  he  will  not  for  a  moment  believe  that,  upon  considera¬ 
tion  of  merely  financial  gain,  that  government  could  be  induced  to  lend  its 
aid  to  a  revolution  designed  to  overthrow  the  institutions  of  this  country, 
and  involving  ultimately  the  destruction  of  the  liberties  of  the  American 
people. 

To  recognize  the  independence  of  a  new  state,  and  so  favor,  possibly  de¬ 
termine,  its  admission  into  the  family  of  nations,  is  the  highest  possible 
exercise  of  sovereign  power,  because  it  affects  in  any  case  the  welfare  of 
two  nations,  and  often  the  peace  of  the  world.  In  the  European  system 
this  power  is  now  seldom  attempted  to  be  exercised  without  invoking  a 
consultation  or  congress  of  nations.  That  system  has  not  been  extended 
to  this  continent.  But  there  is  even  a  greater  necessity  for  prudence  in 
such  cases  in  regard  to  American  States  than  in  regard  to  the  nations  of 
Europe.  A  revolutionary  change  of  dynasty,  or  even  a  disorganization  and 
recombination  of  one  or  many  States,  therefore,  do  not  long  or  deeply  affect 
the  general  interests  of  society,  because  the  ways  of  trade  and  habits  of 
society  remain  the  same.  But  a  radical  change  effected  in  the  political 
combinations  existing  on  the  continent,  followed,  as  it  probably  would  be, 
by  moral  convulsions  of  incalculable  magnitude,  would  threaten  the  sta¬ 
bility  of  society  throughout  the  world. 

Humanity  has  indeed  little  to  hope  for  if  it  shall,  in  this  age  of  high  im¬ 
provement,  be  decided  without  a  trial  that  the  principle  of  international  law 
which  regards  nations  as  moral  persons,  bound  so  to  act  as  to  do  to  each 
other  the  least  injury  and  the  most  good,  is  merely  an  abstraction  too 
refined  to  be  reduced  into  practice  by  the  enlightened  nations  of  Western 
Europe.  Seen  in  the  light  of  this  principle,  the  several  nations  of  the  earth 
constitute  one  great  federal  republic.  When  one  of  them  casts  its  suffrages 
for  the  admission  of  a  new  member  into  that  republic,  it  ought  to  act  under 
a  profound  sense  of  moral  obligation,  and  be  governed  by  considerations  as 
pure,  disinterested,  and  elevated  as  the  general  interest  of  society  and  the 
advancement  of  human  nature. 

The  British  empire  itself  is  an  aggregation  of  divers  communities  which 
cover  a  large  portion  of  the  earth  and  embrace  one-fifth  of  its  entire  popula¬ 
tion.  Some,  at  least,  of  these  communities  are  held  to  their  places  in  that 
system  by  bonds  as  fragile  as  the  obligations  of  our  own  federal  Union. 
The  strain  will  some  time  come  which  is  to  try  the  strength  of  these  bonds, 
though  it  will  be  of  a  different  kind  from  that  which  is  trying  the  cords  of 
our  confederation.  Would  it  be  wise  for  her  Majesty’s  government,  on  this 
occasion,  to  set  a  dangerous  precedent,  or  provoke  retaliation  ?  If  Scotland 
and  Ireland  are  at  last  reduced  to  quiet  contentment,  has  Great  Britain  no 
dependency,  island,  or  province  left  exposed  along  the  whole  circle  of  her 
empire,  from  Gibraltar  through  the  West  Indies  and  Canada  till  it  begins 
again  on  the  southern  extremity  of  Africa  ? 


64 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  President  will  not  dwell  on  the  pleasing  recollection  that  Great 
Britain,  not  yet  a  year  ago,  manifested  by  marked  attention  to  the  United 
States  her  desire  for  a  cordial  reunion  which,  all  ancient  prejudices  and 
passions  being  buried,  should  be  a  pledge  of  mutual  interest  and  sympathy 
forever  thereafter.  The  United  States  are  not  indifferent  to  the  circumstances 
of  common  descent,  language,  customs,  sentiments,  and  religion,  which 
recommend  a  closer  sympathy  between  themselves  and  Great  Britain  than 
either  might  expect  in  its  intercourse  with  any  other  nation.  The  United 
States  are  one  of  many  nations  which  have  sprung  from  Great  Britain  herself. 
Other  such  nations  are  rising  up  in  va  ious  parts  of  the  globe.  It  has  been 
thought  by  many  who  have  studied  the  philosophy  of  modern  history  pro¬ 
foundly,  that  the  success  of  the  nations  thus  deriving  their  descent  from 
Great  Britain  might,  through  many  ages,  reflect  back  upon  that  kingdom 
the  proper  glories  of  its  own  great  career.  The  government  and  people  of 
Great  Britain  may  mistake  their  commercial  interests,  but  they  cannot 
become  either  unnatural  or  indifferent  to  the  impulses  of  an  undying  ambition 
to  be  distinguished  as  the  leaders  of  the  nations  in  the  ways  of  civilization 
and  humanity. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Dallas  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  325.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  March  22,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  recently  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  despatches,  numbered 
304  and  305. 

Having  noticed  that  the  despatch  No.  304,  bearing  date  the  28th  of 
February,  respecting  the  newly-formed  confederacy  of  seceded  States,  was 
in  harmony  as  well  with  the  views  enunciated  in  the  inaugural  address  on 
the  4th  instant  as  with  those  of  the  presidential  message  of  December  last, 
I  lost  no  time  in  seeking  an  interview  with  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary 
of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  and  in  stating  the  opposition  which  1  am  in  that 
despatch  instructed  to  make  to  any  recognition  by  the  Queen  of  England  of 
the  independence  of  those  who  have  thus  attempted  to  throw  off  their  federal 
obligations. 

The  necessary  opportunity  was  accorded  to  me  on  the  day  after  the  receipt 
of  the  despatch,  yesterday.  Lord  John  Russell  then  listened  to  the  commu¬ 
nication  as  one  he  expected  ;  though  on  its  purport  the  British  cabinet,  if 
they  had  interchanged  opinions  at  all,  had  reached  no  definite  conclusion  as 
to  their  proper  course  of  action. 

I  took  the  liberty  to  inquire  whether  any  one  professing  to  represent  the 
southern  republic  had  approached  this  government  on  the  subject,  and  his 
lordship,  with  prompt  frankness,  assured  me  that  he  felt  no  hesitation  in 
answering  in  the  negative,  adding  that  he  had  been  shown  a  private  letter 
from  which  he  inferred  that  accredited  ministers  or  commissioners,  authorized 
to  negotiate  for  the  recognition,  would  shortly  be  sent  by  the  provisional 
authorities  of  Montgomery. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

G.  M.  DALLAS. 

The  Hon.  the  Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


G  5 


Mr.  Dallas  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  329.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  April  5,  18G1. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatches, 
numbered  306  and  307,  and  a  circular,  dated  the  9th  of  March,  1861, 
respecting  the  probable  efforts  of  persons  claiming  to  represent  a  southern 
provisional  government  to  obtain  the  recognition  of  their  independence  by 
Great  Britain. 

Respecting  this  last-mentioned  subject,  I  addressed  yesterday,  as  soon  as 
your  instruction  was  received,  a  note  to  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of 
state  for  foreign  affairs  requesting  an  early  interview,  deeming  it  not 
impossible  that  I  might  be  enabled  to  send  you  something  by  this  steamer. 
My  note,  however,  is  yet  unanswered,  owing,  I  presume,  to  the  absence  of 
Lord  John  Russell  from  town.  The  commissioners  from  the  new  confederacy 
have  not  yet  arrived,  and  may  not  arrive  until  late  in  this  month.  You  were 
apprised  by  my  despatch  of  the  22d  ultimo  (No.  325)  that,  on  the  receipt 
from  the  department  of  your  predecessors,  No.  304,  I  had  lost  no  time  in 
placing  the  matter  properly  before  this  government.  Your  own  views  will 
be  communicated  in  greater  fullness  when  the  opportunity  is  allowed  me. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

G.  M.  DALLAS. 

The  Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Dallas  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  330.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  April  9,  1861. 

Sir:  Referring  to  my  despatch  of  the  5th  instant,  (No.  329,)  I  have  now 
the  honor  to  state  that  Lord  Jdhn  Russell  accorded  me  an  interview  at  the 
foreign  office  yesterday,  and  enabled  me  to  submit  fully  to  his  consideration 
the  representations  of  your  circular,  with  the  inaugural  address  of  the 
President. 

W  e  conversed  for  some  time  on  the  question  of  recognizing  the  alleged 
southern  confederacy,  of  which  no  representative  has  yet  appeared,  and 
may  not  appear  until  the  end  of  the  month. 

llis  lordship  assured  me  witn  great  earnestness  that  there  was  not  the 
slightest  disposition  in  the  British  government  to  grasp  at  any  advantage 
which  might  be  supposed  to  arise  from  the  unpleasant  domestic  differences 
in  the  United  States,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  would  be  highly  grati¬ 
fied  if  those  differences  were  adjusted  and  the  Union  restored  to  its  former 
unbroken  position. 

1  pressed  upon  him,  in  concluding,  if  that  were  the  case — and  1  was  quite 
convinced  that  it  was — how  important  it  must  be  that  this  country  and 
France  should  abstain,  at  least  for  a  considerable  time,  from  doing  what,  by 
encouraging  groundless  hopes,  would  widen  a  breach  still  thought  capable 
of  being  closed. 

He  seemed  to  think  the  matter  not  ripe  for  decision  one  way  or  the  other, 


5 


66 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


and  remarked  that  what  he  had  said  was  all  that  at  present  it  was  in  his  power 
to  say.  The  coming  of  my  successor,  Mr.  Adams,  looked  for  from  week  to 
wrnek,  would  doubtless  he  regarded  as  the  appropriate  and  natural  occasion  for 
finally  discussing  and  determining  the  question.  In  the  intermediate  time 
whatever  of  vigilance  and  activity  may  be  necessary  shall,  of  course,  and 
as  a  high  duty,  be  exerted. 

English  opinion  tends  rather,  I  apprehend,  to  the  theory  that  a  peaceful 
separation  may  work  beneficially  for  both  groups  of  States  and  not  injuriously 
affect  the  rest  of  the  wrnrld.  They  cannot  be  expected  to  appreciate  the 
weakness,  disci  edit,  complications,  and  dangers  which  we  instinctively  and 
justly  ascribe  to  disunion. 

I  beg  to  add  that  a  phase  of  this  subject  will  be  introduced  in  the  House 
of  Commons  to-night  by  Lord  Alfred  Churchill,  and  that  on  the  15tli  instant 
a  motion  favoring  the  recognition  will  be  pressed  by  Mr.  W.  H.  Gregory, 
member  for  Galway. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

G.  M.  DALLAS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


PARLIAMENTARY  NOTICES. 

House  of  Lords,  Tuesday ,  April  9. 

Blackpool  and  Lytham  railroad  bill. 

ORDERS  OF  THE  DAY. 

Middleton’s  estate. — Standing  order  No  141  to  be  considered,  in  order  to 
its  being  dispensed  with,  on  the  petition  for  a  private  bill. 

Lunacy  regulation  bill. — Committee 

Queensland  government  bill. — Committee. 

House  of  Commons,  Tuesday ,  April  9. 

NOTICES  OF  MOTIONS. 

Lord  Stanley. — To  ask  the  under  secretary  of  state  for  war  what  steps 
have  been  or  are  being  taken  to  abolish  purchase  in  the  army  above  the 
rank  of  major,  as  recommended  by  the  commission  of  1856. 

Lord  Alfred  Churchill. — To  ask  the  secretary  of  state  fur  foreign  affairs 
whether  it  is  the  intention  of  her  Majesty’s  government  to  recognize  the 
Confederate  States  of  America  without  a  guarantee  that  the  flag  of  that 
confederation  shall  not  be  made  subservient  to  the  slave  trade,  and  whether 
it  is  the  intention  of  her  Majesty’s  government  to  invite  a  conference  of  the 
European  powers  on  the  subject,  so  as  to  prevent  the  African  slave  trade 
being  reopened  or  carried  on  under  the  flag  of  the  said  confederation. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  4.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  April  21,  1861. 

Sir:  A  despatch  has  just  been  received  from  Mr.  Dallas,  dated  the  9th  of 
April  instant,  the  record  of  which  (No.  330)  }tou  doubtless  will  find  in  the 
archives  of  the  legation  when  you  shall  have  arrived  at  London. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


67 


In  that  paper  Mr.  Dallas  states  that  he  had  had  a  conversation  with  Lord 
John  Russell,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment,  on  the  subject  of  a  protest  against  any  recognition  of  the  so-called 
Confederate  States  of  America,  the  protest  having  been  presented  to  him  by 
Mr.  Dallas,  in  obedience  to  a  circular  letter  of  instructions  sent  to  him  from 
this  department,  under  the  date  of  the  9th  ultimo. 

Mr.  Dallas  represents  that  his  lordship  assured  him,  with  great  earnestness, 
that  there  was  not  the  slightest  disposition  in  the  British  government  to 
grasp  at  any  advantage  which  might  be  supposed  to  arise  from  the  unplea¬ 
sant  domestic  differences  in  the  United  States;  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they 
would  be  highly  gratified  if  those  differences  were  adjusted,  and  the  Union 
restored  to  its  former  unbroken  position. 

This,  by  itself,  would  be  very  gratifying  to  the  President.  Mr.  Dallas, 
however,  adds  that  he  endeavored  to  impress  upon  his  lordship  how  impor¬ 
tant  it  must  be  that  Great  Britain  and  France  should  abstain,  at  least  for  a 
considerable  time,  from  doing  what,  by  encouraging  groundless  hopes,  would 
widen  a  breach  still  thought  capable  of  being  closed  ;  but  that  his  lordshid 
seemed  to  think  the  matter  not  ripe  for  decision  one  way  or  the  other,  and 
remarked  that  what  he  had  already  said  was  all  that  at  present  it  was  in 
his  power  to  say. 

When  you  shall  have  read  the  instructions  at  large  which  have  been  sent 
to  you,  you  will  hardly  need  to  be  told  that  these  last  remarks  of  his  lord- 
ship  are  by  no  means  satisfactory  to  this  government.  Iler  Britannic 
Majesty’s  government  is  at  liberty  to  choose  whether  it  will  retain  the  friend¬ 
ship  of  this  government  by  refusing  all  aid  and  comfort  to  its  enemies,  now 
in  flagrant  rebellion  against  it,  as  we  think  the  treaties  existing  between 
the  two  countries  require,  or  whether  the  government  of  her  Majesty  will 
take  the  precarious  benefits  of  a  different  course. 

You  will  lose  no  time  in  making  known  to  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment  that  the  President  regards  the  answer  of  his  lordship  as  possibly 
indicating  a  policy  that  this  government  would  be  obliged  to  deem  injurious 
to  its  rights  and  derogating  from  its  dignity. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

C.  F.  Adams,  Esq., 

dec.,  dec.,  dec. 


Mr.  Valias  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  333.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  May  2,  1861. 

Sir:  In  my  No.  329  I  mentioned  having  received  your  Nos.  306  and 
307,  and  “a  circular  of  the  9th  of  March,  1861.”  As  1  have  got  no  despatch 
from  you,  numbered  308,  it  is  probable  that  this  “circular”  was  considered 
at  the  department  as  representing  that  number  in  the  series.  I  have  now 
to  acknowledge  your  several  despatches,  numbered,  respectively,  309,  310, 
311,  and  312,  whose  contents  have  had  my  careful  and  prompt  attention. 

You  have  doubtless  noticed  that  the  motion  of  Mr.  Gregory,  in  the  House 
of  Commons,  on  the  recognition  of  the  southern  confederation — which  motion 
I  mentioned  at  the  conclusion  of  my  No.  330 — underwent  postponement 
from  the  16th  to  the  30th  ultimo,  and  lias  again  been  deferred  a  fortnight, 
for  the  reasons  stated  in  the  extract  from  the  “  Times”  newspaper  of  the 
30th  April,  hereto  annexed. 


68 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  solicitude  felt  by  Lord  John  Russell  as  to  the  effect  of  certain  measures 
represented  as  likely  to  be  adopted  by  the  President  induced  him  to  request 
me  to  call  at  his  private  residence  yesterday.  I  did  so.  He  told  me  that 
the  three  representatives  of  the  southern  confederacy  were  here;  that  he 
had  not  seen  them,  but  was  not  unwilling  to  do  so,  unofficially;  that  there 
existed  an  understanding  between  this  government  and  that  of  France  which 
would  lead  both  to  take  the  same  course  as  to  recognition,  whatever  that 
course  might  be;  and  he  then  referred  to  the  rumor  of  a  meditated  blockade 
of  southern  ports  and  their  discontinuance  as  ports  of  entry — topics  on 
which  I  had  heard  nothing,  and  could  therefore  say  nothing.  But  as  I 
informed  him  that  Mr.  Adams  had  apprised  me  of  his  intention  to  be  on  his 
way  hither,  in  the  steamship  “  Niagara,”  which  left  Boston  on  the  1st  May, 
and  that  he  would  probably  arrive  in  less  than  two  weeks,  by  the  12th  or 
15th  instant,  his  lordship  acquiesced  in  the  expediency  of  disregarding  mere 
rumor,  and  waiting  the  full  knowledge  to  be  brought  by  my  successor. 

The  motion,  therefore,  of  Mr.  Gregory  may  be  further  postponed,  at  his 
lordship’s  suggestion. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

G.  M.  DALLAS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


[From  the  London  Times,  April  30,  1861.] 

America. — In  reply  to  a  question  from  Mr.  W.  E.  Foster,  Mr.  Gregory 
stated  that  in  deference  to  the  expressed  opinion  of  the  foreign  secretary, 
who  had  informed  him  that  a  discussion  at  the  present  moment  upon  the 
expediency  of  a  prompt  recognition  of  the  southern  confederation  of  America 
■would  be  embarrassing  to  the  public  service,  and  in  deference,  also,  to  the 
wishes  of  several  honorable  friends  of  his,  he  should  postpone  for  a  fortnight 
the  motion  which  stood  in  his  name  for  to-morrow  night.  The  noble  lord  at 
the  head  of  the  foreign  office  believed  that  the  motion  might  then  be  brought 
forward  without  inconvenience. 


[From  the  London  Times,  May  3,  1861.] 

America. — Southern  Letters  of  Marque. — Mr.  J.  Ewart  asked  the  secretary 
of  state  for  foreign  affairs  whether,  seeing  the  possibility  of  privateering 
being  permitted  and  encouraged  by  the  southern  confederation  of  the  States 
of  America,  her  Majesty’s  government  had  placed  a  sufficient  naval  force,  or 
intended  to  increase  it,  in  the  Gulf  of  Mexico,  with  a  view  to  protect  British 
shipping  and  British  property  on  board  of  American  ships  ;  and  if  privateers, 
sailing  under  the  flag  of  an  unrecognized  power,  would  be  dealt  with  as 
pirates. 

Lord  J.  Russell  said  :  In  answer  to  the  first  part  of  the  question  of  the 
honorable  gentleman,  I  beg  to  say  that  her  Majesty’s  government  has  directed 
that  a  naval  force,  for  the  protection  of  British  shipping,  should  be  sent  to 
the  coast  of  America,  As  to  the  latter  part  of  the  question,  I  will  state  to 
the  house  that  the  government  has,  from  day  to  day,  received  the  most  la¬ 
mentable  accounts  of  the  progress  of  the  war  in  the  States  of  America. 
Her  Majesty’s  government  heard  the  other  day  that  the  Confederated  States 
.have  issued  letters  of  marque  ;  and  to-day  we  have  heard  that  it  is  intended 
there  shall  be  a  blockade  of  all  the  ports  of  the  southern  States.  As  to  the 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


69 


general  provisions  of  the  law  of  nations  on  these  questions,  some  of  the 
points  are  so  new  as  well  as  so  important  that  they  have  been  referred  to 
the  law  officers  of  the  crown  for  their  opinion  in  order  to  guide  the  govern¬ 
ment  in  its  instructions  both  to  the  English  minister  in  America  and  the 
commander  of  the  naval  squadron.  Her  Majesty’s  government  has  felt  that 
it  was  its  duty  to  use  every  possible  means  to  avoid  taking  any  part  in  the 
lamentable  contest  now  raging  in  the  American  States.  (Hear,  hear.)  And 
nothing  but  the  imperative  duty  of  protecting  British  interests,  in  case  they 
should  be  attacked,  justifies  the  government  in  at  all  interfering.  We  have 
not  been  involved  in  any  way  in  that  contest  by  any  act  or  giving  any 
advice  in  the  matter,  and,  for  God’s  sake,  let  us  if  possible  keep  out  of  it! 
(Cheers.) 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extracts.] 

No.  1.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  May  17,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  satisfaction'  to  announce  my  safe  arrival  at  this  place  on 
Monday  evening,  the  13th  of  this  month.  The  steamer  reached  Liverpool  at 
eleven  in  the  morning,  where  I  was  received  with  the  utmost  kindness,  and 
strongly  solicited  to  remain  at  least  one  day.  A  large  deputation  of  the 
American  Chamber  of  Commerce  waited  upon  me  and  delivered  an  address, 
to  which  I  made  a  brief  reply.  Both  have  been  printed  in  the  newspapers, 
and  I  transmit  a  cop}r  of  the  Times  containing  them.  I  could  not  fail  to 
observe,  in  the  course  of  these  proceedings,  the  great  anxiety  and  the  fluc¬ 
tuating  sentiment  that  prevail  in  regard  to  the  probable  issue  of  affairs  in 
America.  I  could  also  perceive  that  my  arrival  had  been  expected  with  far 
more  solicitude  than  I  had  anticipated.  It  was  not  disguised  from  me  that 
a  supposed  community  of  interest  in  the  cotton  culture  was  weighing 
heavily  in  that  city  in  favor  of  the  disaffected;  and  that  much  misapprehen¬ 
sion  prevailed  as  to  the  relative  position  of  parties  in  the  United  States, 
which  it  was  of  some  consequence  to  dispel.  To  this  end  it  had  been  the 
wish  that  I  could  have  found  it  convenient  to  make  a  longer  stay  in  the 
place. 

Under  other  circumstances  1  might  have  so  far  deferred  to  these  repre¬ 
sentations  as  to  delay  my  departure  for  twenty-four  hours.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  some  incidental  allusions  to  the  state  of  things  in  London  con¬ 
vinced  me  of  the  importance  of  losing  no  time  on  my  way.  Accordingly  I 
took  the  next  train  in  the  afternoon,  and  was  in  a  condition  to  proceed  at 
once  to  business  on  the  morning  of  Tuesday,  the  14th.  In  the  interval 
between  my  departure  from  Boston  on  the  1st  and  my  arrival  on  the  14th,  I 
discovered  that  some  events  had  taken  place  deserving  of  attention  The 
agents  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  had  arrived,  and,  as  it  is  sup¬ 
posed,  through  their  instigation  certain  inquiries  and  motions  had  been 
initiated  in  Parliament  for  the  purpose  of  developing  the  views  of  the 
ministry  in  regard  to  American  affairs.  I  allude  more  particularly  to  the 
questions  proposed  by  Mr.  Gregory,  of  Galway,  and  to  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Horsfall,  the  member  for  Liverpool,  touching  the  effect  of  the  blockade  pro¬ 
claimed  by  the  President  against  the  southern  ports.  The  answer  given  by 
Lord  John  Russell,  in  the  proceedings  of  the  6th  of  May,  will,  of  course, 
have  attracted  your  attention  long  before  these  lines  meet  your  eye.  1  need 


70 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


not  say  that  it  excited  general  surprise,  especially  among  those  most  friendly 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  There  seemed  to  be  not  a  little 
precipitation  in  at  once  raising  the  disaffected  States  np  to  the  level  of  a 
belligerent  power,  befom  it  had  developed  a  single  one  of  the  real  elements 
which  constitute  military  efficiency  outside  of  its  geographical  limits.  The 
case  of  the  Greeks  was  by  no  means  a  parallel  case,  for  the  declaration  had 
not  been  made  until  such  time  had  intervened  as  was  necessary  to  prove, 
by  the  very  words  quoted  by  Lord  John  Russell  from  the  instructions  of  the 
British  government,  that  the  power  was  sufficient  “  to  cover  the  sea  with 
its  cruisers  ”  Whereas  in  the  present  instance  there  was  no  evidence  to 
show  as  yet  the  existence  of  a  single  privateer  afloat.  The  inference  seemed 
almost  inevitable  that  there  existed  a  disposition  at  least  not  to  chill  the 
hopes  of  those  who  are  now  drawing  the  very  breath  of  life  only  from  the 
expectation  of  sympathy  in  Great  Britain.  Yet  I  am  not  quite  prepared  to 
say  that  there  is  just  ground  for  the  idea.  On  the  contrary,  I  am  led  to 
believe,  from  the  incidental  discussion  afterwards  held  in  both  houses,  as 
well  as  from  other  information,  that  the  language  of  Lord  John  Russell  was 
viewed  as  not  altogether  sufficiently  guarded,  and  that  the  ministry  as  a 
whole  are  not  prepared  to  countenance  any  such  conclusion. 

There  are  still  other  reasons  which  occasion  in  me  great  surprise  at  the 
action  of  his  lordship.  I  need  not  say  that  I  was  received  by  m37  prede¬ 
cessor,  Mr.  Dallas,  with  the  greatest  kindness  and  cordiality.  I  immediately 
learned  from  him  that  he  had  declined  himself  to  enter  into  any  discussions 
on  the  subject,  because  he  knew  that  I  was  already  on  my  way  out,  and 
that  I  should  probably  come  fully  possessed  of  the  views  of  my  government, 
and  ready  to  communicate  them  freely  to  the  authorities  here.  To  this  end 
he  had  already  concerted  with  Lord  John  Russell  the  earliest  possible 
measures  for  my  presentation  and  for  a  conference  with  him.  In  regard  to 
the  ceremony,  there  were  circumstances  attending  it  which,  in  the  precise 
posture  of  affairs,  give  it  some  significance.  *  *  On  Tuesday  morning 

Mr.  Dallas  called  on  me  to  accompany  him  on  his  visit  to  Lord  John  Russell, 
at  his  house,  at  eleven  o’clock.  Great  was  our  disappointment,  however,  to 
find  that  he  had  been  suddenly  called  away,  at  an  early  hour,  to  visit  his 
brother,  the  Duke  of  Bedford,  at  Woburn  Abbey,  who  was  very  ill,  and  who 
actually  died  at  two  o’clock  in  the  afternoon  of  that  day.  This,  of  course, 
has  put  an  end  to  all  further  communication  with  him  for  the  present.  I 
very  much  regretted  this  circumstance,  as  I  should  have  been  glad  to  con¬ 
verse  with  him  prior  to  the  final  action  upon  the  proclamation  which  was 
adopted  by  the  Privy  Council,  and  which  was  issued  in  the  Gazette  on  the 
very  same  day.  A  cop}7  of  that  proclamation  is  to  be  found  in  the  Times  of 
the  15th  of  May,  the  same  paper  which  I  have  already  desired  to  transmit 
for  another  purpose.  I  submit  it  to  your  consideration  without  comment. 

Feeling  doubtful  how  the  informal  arrangement  of  Lord  John  Russell 
might  have  been  affected  by  his  sudden  departure,  I  at  once  addressed  to 
him  the  customary  announcement  of  my  arrival,  and  a  request  for  an 
audience  of  her  Majesty  at  an  early  da}7.  This  brought  me  immediate 
replies  from  the  minister  and  from  his  secretary,  Mr.  Hammond,  confirming 
the  appointment  of  Thursday  (yesterday)  as  the  time  for  my  presentation, 
while  the  latter  gentleman  notified  me  that  in  the  absence  of  Lord  John 
Russell  Lord  Palmerston  would  be  in  waiting  at  the  palace  at  three  o’clock 
to  present  me.  At  the  same  time  Mr.  Dallas  received  a  similar  notification, 
appointing  the  same  hour  and  place  for  his  audience  of  leave.  This  arrange¬ 
ment  was  fully  carried  out  yesterday  according  to  the  programme.  Mr. 
Dallas  was  introduced  first,  and  took  his  leave,  after  which  I  presented  my 
credentials,  with  a  few  words  expressive  of  the  desire  of  my  government  to 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


71 


maintain  the  friendly  relations  existing  between  the  two  countries;  and 
thus  I  became  the  recognized  minister. 

Thus  an  end  is  put  to  all  the  speculations  which  have  been  set  afloat  in 
some  quarters  for  interested  purposes  touching  the  probable  position  of  the 
minister  of  the  United  States  at  this  court.  I  might  add,  that  so  far  I  have 
every  reason  to  be  fully  satisfied  with  the  reception  which  I  have  met  with 
from  everybody.  Fortunately  the  news  which  came  from  the  United  States 
by  the  same  steamer  which  brought  me  was  calculated  to  dispel  many  of 
the  illusions  that  had  been  industriously  elaborated  during  the  period  of 
isolation  of  the  city  of  Washington,  and  to  confirm  the  faith  of  those  who 
had  permitted  themselves  to  doubt  whether  all  government  in  the  United 
States  was  of  any  more  cohesiveness  than  a  rope  of  sand.  Yet  I  cannot  say 
that  the  public  opinion  is  yet  exactly  what  wre  would  wish  it.  Much  depends 
upon  the  course  of  things  in  the  United  States,  and  the  firmness  and  energy 
made  visible  in  the  direction  of  affairs. 

The  morning  papers  contain  a  report  of  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Lords 
on  the  Queen’s  proclamation,  to  which  I  beg  to  call  your  particular  atten¬ 
tion.  I  cannot  say  that  the  tone  of  it  is  generally  such  as  I  could  wish. 
There  is  undoubtedly  a  considerable  influence  at  work  here  both  in  and  out 
of  the  ministry  which  must  be  met  and  counteracted  at  as  early  a  moment  as 
practicable.  Mr.  Gregory  yesterday  gave  notice  of  a  postponement  of  the 
consideration  of  his  motion  until  the  7th  of  June.  The  reason  assigned  is  the 
situation  of  Lord  John  Russell.  *  *  The  same  cause,  however,  which 

postpones  this  debate  also  delays  my  opportunities  of  conference  with  the 
minister.  My  wish  has  been  to  confer  with  him  rather  than  with  any  of  the 
subordinates,  for  reasons  which  will  readily  occur  to  you.  Next  week  come 
the  Whitsuntide  holidays,  and  the  adjournment  of  Parliament  for  ten  days, 
during  which  little  can  be  done  with  effect.  I  propose,  nevertheless,  at  once 
to  apply  for  a  conference  at  as  early  a  period  as  possible. 

I  have  just  received  a  visit  from  a  Mr.  Arrowsmith,  who  came  on  behalf 
of  Mr.  Cunard’s  Steamship  Company,  to  know  whether  the  government  would 
desire  any  number  of  their  steam  vessels  to  further  their  operations  of  blockade. 
I  said,  in  reply,  that  I  had  no  instructions  on  that  point,  and  could  give  no 
information,  but  that  I  was  now  writing  and  would  communicate  the  pro¬ 
posal.  Mr.  Arrowsmith  says  that  fifteen  or  twenty  vessels  could  be  furnished 
at  a  moment’s  notice,  which,  by  preparations  of  cotton  pressed  between  decks, 
could  be  made  to  sustain  guns,  and  thus  be  efficient  instruments  in  closing 
the  southern  ports. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 

P.  S. — I  have  this  moment  received  your  despatches  No.  3  and  No.  4. 
They  are  of  such  importance  that  I  immediately  addressed  a  note  to  the 
foreign  office  requesting  an  early  interview. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  10.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  21,  18G1. 

Sir:  This  government  considers  that  our  relations  in  Europe  have  reached 
a  crisis,  in  which  it  is  necessary  for  it  to  take  a  decided  stand,  on  which  not 


72 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


only  its  immediate  measures,  but  its  ultimate  and  permanent  policy  can  be 
determined  and  defined.  At  the  same  time  it  neither  means  to  menace 
Great  Britain  nor  to  wound  the  susceptibilities  of  that  or  any  other  European 
nation.  That  policy  is  developed  in  this  paper. 

The  paper  itself  is  not  to  be  read  or  shown  to  the  British  secretary  of 
state,  nor  are  any  of  its  positions  to  be  prematurely,  unnecessarily,  or  indis¬ 
creetly  made  known.  But  its  spirit  will  be  your  guide.  You  will  keep 
back  nothing  when  the  time  arrives  for  its  being  said  with  dignity,  propriety, 
and  effect,  and  you  will  all  the  while  be  careful  to  say  nothing  that  will  be 
incongruous  or  inconsistent  with  the  views  which  it  contains. 

Mr.  Dallas,  in  a  brief  despatch  of  May  2,  (No.  333,)  tells  us  that  Lord 
John  Russell  recently  requested  an  interview  with  him  on  account  ot  the 
solicitude  which  his  lordship  felt  concerning  the  effect  of  certain  measures 
represented  as  likely  to  be  adopted  by  the  President.  In  that  conversation 
the  British  secretary  told  Mr.  Dallas  that  the  three  representatives  of  the 
southern  confederacv  were  then  in  London,  that  Lord  John  Russell  had  not 
yet  seen  them,  but  that  he  was  not  unwilling  to  see  them  unofficially.  He 
further  informed  Mr.  Dallas  that  an  understanding  exists  between  the  British 
and  French  governments  which  would  lead  both  to  take  one  and  the  same 
course  as  to  recognition.  His  lordship  then  referred  to  the  rumor  of  a 
meditated  blockade  by  us  of  southern  ports,  and  a  discontinuance  of  them 
as  ports  of  entry.  Mr.  Dallas  answered  that  he  knew  nothing  on  those 
topics,  and  therefore  could  say  nothing.  He  added  that  you  were  expected 
to  arrive  in  two  weeks.  Upon  this  statement  Lord  John  Russell  acquiesced 
in  the  expediency  of  waiting  for  the  full  knowledge  you  were  expected  to 
bring. 


Mr.  Dali  as  transmitted  to  us  some  newspaper  reports  of  ministerial  expla¬ 
nations  made  in  Parliament. 

You  will  base  no  proceedings  on  parliamentary  debates  further  than  to  seek 
explanations,  when  necessary,  and  communicate  them  to  this  department. 

The  President  regrets  that  Mr.  Dallas  did  not  protest  against  the  proposed 
unofficial  intercourse  between  the  British  government  and  the  missionaries 
of  the  insurgents.  It  is  due,  however,  to  Mr.  Dallas  to  say  that  our  instruc¬ 
tions  had  been  given  only  to  you  and  not  to  him,  and  that  his  loyalty  and 
fidelity,  too  rare  in  these  times,  are  appreciated. 

Intercourse  of  any  kind  with  the  so-called  commissioners  is  liable  to  be 
construed  as  a  recognition  of  the  authority  which  appointed  them.  Such 
intercourse  would  be  none  the  less  hurtful  to  us  for  being  called  unofficial, 
and  it  might  be  even  more  injurious,  because  we  should  have  no  means  of 
knowing  what  points  might  be  resolved  by  it.  Moreover,  unofficial  inter¬ 
course  is  useless  and  meaningless  if  it  is  not  expected  to  ripen  into  official 
intercourse  and  direct  recognition.  It  is  left  doubtful  here  whether  the  pro¬ 
posed  unofficial  intercourse  has  yet  actually  begun.  Your  own  antecedent 
instructions  are  deemed  explicit  enough,  and  it  is  hoped  that  you  have  not 
misunderstood  them.  You  will,  in  any  event,  desist  from  all  intercourse 
whatever,  unofficial  as  well  as  official,  with  the  British  government,  so  long 
as  it  shall  continue  intercourse  of  either  kind  with  the  domestic  enemies  of 
this  country.  When  intercourse  shall  have  been  arrested  for  this  cause,  you 
will  communicate  with  this  department  and  receive  further  directions. 

Lord  John  Russell  has  informed  u^  of  an  understanding  between  the 
British  and  French  governments  that  they  will  act  together  in  regard  to  our 
affairs.  This  communication,  however,  loses  something  of  its  value  from 
the  circumstance  that  the  communication  was  withheld  until  after  knowl¬ 
edge  of  the  fact  had  been  acquired  b}T  us  from  other  sources.  We  know 
also  another  fact  that  has  not  yet  been  officially  communicated  to  us, 
namely:  That  other  European  states  are  apprized  by  France  and  England 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


73 


of  their  agreement,  and  are  expected  to  concur  with  or  follow  them  in  what¬ 
ever  measures  they  adopt  on  the  subject  of  recognition.  The  United  States 
have  been  impartial  and  just  in  all  their  conduct  towards  the  several  nations 
of  Europe.  The}7  will  not  complain,  however,  of  the  combination  now  an¬ 
nounced  by  the  two  leading  powers,  although  they  think  they  had  a  right 
to  expect  a  more  independent,  if  not  a  more  friendly  course,  from  each  of 
them.  You  will  take  no  notice  of  that  or  any  other  alliance.  Whenever 
the  European  governments  shall  see  fit  to  communicate  directly  with  us,  we 
shall  be,  as  heretofore,  frank  and  explicit  in  our  reply. 

As  to  the  blockade,  you  will  say  that  by  our  own  laws  and  the  laws  of 
nature,  and  the  laws  of  nations,  this  government  has  a  clear  right  to  sup¬ 
press  insurrection.  An  exclusion  of  commerce  from  national  ports  which 
have  been  seized  by  insurgents,  in  the  equitable  form  of  blockade,  is  a 
proper  means  to  that  end.  You  will  not  insist  that  our  blockade  is  to  be 
respected,  if  it  be  not  maintained  by  a  competent  force;  but  passing  by  that 
question  as  not  now  a  practical  or  at  least  an  urgent  one,  you  will  add  that 
the  blockade  is  now,  and  it  will  continue  to  be,  so  maintained,  and  therefore 
wo  expect  it  to  be  respected  by  Great  Britain.  You  will  add  that  we  have 
already  revoked  the  exequatur  of  a  Russian  consul  who  had  enlisted  in  the 
military  service  of  the  insurgents,  and  we  shall  dismiss  or  demand  the  recall 
of  every  foreign  agent,  consular  or  diplomatic,  who  shall  either  disobey  the 
federal  laws  or  disown  the  federal  authority. 

As  to  the  recognition  of  the  so-called  Southern  Confederacy,  it  is  not  to 
be  made  a  subject  of  technical  definition.  It  is,  of  course,  direct  recognition 
to  publish  an  acknowledgment  of  the  sovereignty  and  independence  of  a 
new  power.  It  is  direct  recognition  to  receive  its  embassadors,  ministers, 
agents  or  commissioners,  officially.  A  concession  of  belligerent  rights  is 
liable  to  be  construed  as  a  recognition  of  them.  No  one  of  these  proceedings 
will  pass  unquestioned  by  the  United  States  in  this  case. 

Hitherto,  recognition  has  been  moved  oidy  on  the  assumption  that  the 
so-called  Confederate  States  are  de  facto  a  self-sustaining  power.  Now, 
after  long  forbearance,  designed  to  sooth  discontent  and  avert  the  need  of 
civil  war,  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  United  States  have  been  put  in 
motion  to  repress  insurrection.  The  true  character  of  the  pretended  new 
State  is  at  once  revealed.  It  is  seen  to  be  a  power  existing  in  pronuncia- 
mento  only.  It  has  never  won  a  field.  It  has  obtained  no  forts  that  were 
not  virtually  betrayed  into  its  hands  or  seized  in  breach  of  trust.  It  com¬ 
mands  not  a  single  port  on  the  coast  nor  any  highway  out  from  its  pretended 
capital  by  land.  Under  these  circumstances,  Great  Britain  is  called  upon 
to  intervene  and  give  it  body  and  independence  by  resisting  our  measures 
of  suppression.  British  recognition  would  be  British  intervention,  to  create 
within  our  territory  a  hostile  State  by  overthrowing  this  republic  itself. 

si/  si/  si/  si/  si/  s'/ 

'I'  /|S  /|s  /^s  /Js  /fs  /|s  /|S  /|S 


As  to  the  treatment  of  privateers  in  the  insurgent  service,  you  will  say 
that  this  is  a  question  exclusively  our  own.  We  treat  them  as  pirates. 
They  are  our  own  citizens,  or  persons  employed  by  our  citizens,  preying  on 
the  commerce  of  our  country.  If  Great  Britain  shall  choose  to  recognize 
them  as  lawful  belligerents,  and  give  them  shelter  from  our  pursuit  and 
punishment,  the  laws  of  nations  afford  an  adequate  and  proper  remedy. 

Happily,  however,  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  government  can  avoid  all  these 
difficulties.  It  invited  us  in  1850  to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  the  con¬ 
gress  of  Paris,  of  which  body  Great  Britain  was  herself  a  member,  abolish¬ 
ing  privateering  everywhere  in  all  cases  and  forever.  You  already  have 
our  authority  to  propose  to  her  our  accession  to  that  declaration.  If  she 
refuse  it,  it  can  only  be  because  she  is  willing  to  become  the  patron  of  pri¬ 
vateering  when  aimed  at  our  devastation. 


74 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


These  positions  are  not  elaborately  defended  now,  because  to  vindicate 
them  would  imply  a  possibility  of  our  waiving1  them. 

We  are  not  insensible  of  the  grave  importance  of  this  occasion.  We  see 
how,  upon  the  result  of  the  debate  in  which  we  are  engaged,  a  war  may 
ensue  between  the  United  States  and  one,  two,  or  even  more  European 
nations.  War  in  any  case  is  as  exceptional  from  the  habits  as  it  is  re¬ 
volting  from  the  sentiments  of  the  American  people.  But  if  it  come  it  will 
be  full}7  seen  that  it  results  from  the  action  of  Great  Britain,  not  our  own; 
that  Great  Britain  will  have  decided  to  fraternize  with  our  domestic  enemy 
either  without  waiting  to  hear  from  von  our  remonstrances  and  our  warnings, 
or  after  having  heard  them.  War  in  defence  of  national  life  is  not  immoral, 
and  war  in  defence  of  independence  is  an  inevitable  part  of  the  discipline  of 
nations. 

The  dispute  will  be  between  the  European  and  the  American  branches  of 
the  British  race.  All  who  belong  to  that  race  will  especially  deprecate  it, 
as  they  ought.  It  may  well  be  believed  that  men  of  every  race  and  kindred 
will  deplore  it,  A  war  not  unlike  it  between  the  same  parties  occurred  at 
the  close  of  the  last  century.  Europe  atoned  by  forty  years  of  suffering  for 
the  error  that  Great  Britain  committed  in  provoking  that  contest.  If  that 
nation  shall  now  repeat  the  same  great  error,  the  social  convulsions  which 
will  follow  may  not  be  so  long,  but  they  will  be  more  general.  When  they 
shall  have  ceased,  it  will,  we  think,  be  seen,  whatever  may  have  been  the 
fortunes  of  other  nations,  that  it  is  not  the  United  States  that  will  have 
come  out  of  them  with  its  precious  Constitution  altered,  or  its  honestly 
obtained  dominions  in  any  degree  abridged.  Great  Britain  has  but  to  wait 
a  few  months,  and  all  her  present  inconveniences  will  cease  with  all  our 
own  troubles.  If  she  take  a  different  course  she  will  calculate  for  herself 
the  ultimate,  as  well  as  the  immediate  consequences,  and  will  consider  what 
position  she  will  hold  when  she  shall  have  forever  lost  the  sympathies  and 
affections  of  the  only  nation  on  whose  sympathies  and  affections  she  has  a 
natural  claim.  In  making  that  calculation  she  will  do  well  to  remember 
that  in  the  controversy  she  proposes  to  open  we  shall  be  actuated  b}7  neither 
pride,  nor  passion,  nor  cupidity,  nor  ambition;  but  we  shall  stand  simply  on 
the  principle  of  self-preservation,  and  that  our  cause  will  involve  the  inde¬ 
pendence  of  nations  and  the  rights  of  human  nature. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  dec.,  dec. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  2.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  May  21,  1861. 

Sir:  At  the  close  of  my  last  despatch  I  stated  my  purpose  to  ask  an  early 
interview  with  Lord  John  Russell.  A  note  to  that  effect  was  immediately 
sent  to  the  foreign  office.  An  answer  was  received  on  Saturday  morning, 
saying  that  his  lordship  would  be  happy  to  see  me,  if  I  would  take  the 
trouble  to  go  out  to  Pembroke  Lodge,  at  Richmond,  where  he  is  retired  for 
the  present,  on  Monday  at  twelve  or  one  o’clock,  or,  if  I  preferred  ir,  he 
would  see  me  at  one  o’clock  on  that  same  day,  (May  18.)  Although  it  was 
approaching  eleven  o’clock  when  I  got  the  answer,  and  the  distance  exceeds 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


75 


nine  miles  from  the  city,  I  replied  by  accepting  the  earlier  appointment,  and 
was  probably  myself  at  the  Lodge  before  he  received  my  note. 

Be  this  as  it  may,  I  found  his  lordship  ready  to  receive  me,  so  that  I  pro¬ 
ceeded  at  once  to  business.  After  expressing  the  general  feeling  which  I 
believed  prevailing  in  the  LTnited  States  of  good  will  towards  Great  Britain, 
and  the  confident  expectations  I  had  entertained,  down  to  the  period  of  my 
arrival,  that  these  sentiments  were  fully  reciprocated  to  my  government  on 
the  part  of  the  government  here,  I  signified  my  sense  of  disappointment  in 
not  finding  this  quite  so  unequivocally  manifested  as  I  had  hoped.  There 
w'ere  now  fewer  topics  of  direct  difference  between  the  two  countries  than 
had  probably  existed  at  any  preceding  time,  and  even  these  had  been  with¬ 
drawn  from  discussion  at  this  place  to  be  treated  on  the  other  side  of  the 
water.  I  therefore  came  out  here  with  little  to  do  beyond  the  duty  of  pre¬ 
serving  the  relations  actually  existing  from  the  risk  of  being  unfavorably 
affected  by  the  unfortunate  domestic  disturbances  prevailing  in  my  own 
country.  It  was  not  without  pain  that  I  was  compelled  to  admit  that  from 
the  da}'  of  my  arrival  I  had  felt  in  the  proceedings  of  both  houses  of  Par¬ 
liament,  in  the  language  of  her  Majesty’s  ministers,  and  in  the  tone  of  opinion 
prevailing  in  private  circles,  more  of  uncertainty  about  this  than  I  had  before 
thought  possible.  This  sentiment  alone  wmuld  have  impelled  me  to  solicit 
an  early  interview;  but  I  was  now  come  under  a  much  stronger  motive  I 
had  just  received  a  despatch  from  my  government,  based  upon  a  letter  from 
Mr.  Dallas,  of  much  earlier  date  than  any  of  the  matters  to  which  I  had 
alluded.  In  that  letter  he  had  reported  a  conversation  with  his  lordship,  the 
close  of  which  had  been  deemed  so  unsatisfactory  that  I  had  been  directed 
at  once  to  seek  for  a  further  elucidation  of  his  meaning.  It  was  the  desire 
of  my  government  to  learn  whether  it  was  the  intention  of  her  Majesty’s 
ministers  to  adopt  a  policy  which  would  have  the  effect  to  widen,  if  not  to 
make  irreparable,  a  breach  which  we  believed  yet  to  be  entirely  manageable 
by  ourselves. 

At  this  point  his  lordship  replied  by  saying  that  there  was  no  such  inten¬ 
tion.  The  clearest  evidence  of  that  was  to  be  found  in  the  assurance  given 
by  him  to  Mr.  Dallas  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  conversation  referred  to.  With 
regard  to  the  other  portion,  against  which  I  understood  him  to  intimate  he 
had  already  heard  from  Lord  Lyons  that  the  President  had  taken  exception, 
he  could  only  say  that  he  hardly  saw  his  way  to  bind  the  government  to  any 
specific  course,  when  circumstances  beyond  their  agency  rendered  it  difficult 
to  tell  what  might  happen.  Should  the  insurgent  States  ultimately  succeed 
in  establishing  themselves  in  an  independent  position,  of  the  probability  of 
which  he  desired  to  express  no  opinion,  he  presumed,  from  the  general  course 
of  the  United  States  heretofore,  that  they  did  not  mean  to  require  of  other 
countries  to  pledge  themselves  to  go  further  than  they  had  been  in  the  habit 
of  going  themselves.  He  therefore,  by  what  he  had  said  to  Mr.  Dallas,  simply 
meant  to  say  that  they  were  not  disposed  in  any  way  to  interfere. 

To  this  I  replied  by  begging  leave  to  remark  that,  so  far  as  my  govern¬ 
ment  was  concerned,  any  desire  to  interfere  had  never  been  imputed  to  Great 
Britain;  but  in  her  peculiar  position  it  was  deserving  of  grave  consideration 
whether  great  caution  was  not  to  be  used  in  adopting  any  course  that  mi  ght, 
even  in  the  most  indirect  way,  have  an  effect  to  encourage  the  hopes  of  the 
disaffected  in  America.  It  had  now  come  to  this,  that  without  support  from 
here,  the  people  of  the  United  States  considered  the  termination  of  this 
difficulty  as  almost  entirely  a  question  of  time.  Any  course  adopted  here 
that  would  materially  change  that  calculation  would  inevitably  raise  the 
most  unpleasant  feelings  among  them.  For  independently  of  the  absolute 
influence  of  Great  Britain,  admitted  to  be  great,  the  effect  of  any  supposed 


76 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


inclination  on  her  part  could  not  fail  to  he  extensive  among  the  other  nations 
of  Europe.  It  was  my  belief  that  the  insurgent  States  could  scarcely  hope 
for  sympathy  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  if  deprived  of  any  prospect  of  it 
here.  Hence  anything  that  looked  like  a  manifestation  of  it  would  be  re¬ 
garded  among  us  as  inevitably  tending  to  develope  an  ultimate  separation 
in  America;  and,  whether  intended  or  not,  the  impression  made  would  scarcely 
be  effaced  by  time.  It  was  in  this  view  that  I  must  be  permitted  to  express 
the  great  regret  I  had  felt  on  learning  the  decision  to  issue  the  Queen’s 
proclamation,  which  at  once  raised  the  insurgents  to  the  level  of  a  belliger¬ 
ent  State,  and  still  more  the  language  used  in  regard  to  it  b^y  her  Majesty’s 
ministers  in  both  houses  of  Parliament  before  and  since.  Whatever  might 
be  the  design,  there  could  be  no  shadow  of  doubt  that  the  effect  of  these 
events  had  been  to  encourage  the  friends  of  the  disaffected  here.  The  tone 
of  the  press  and  of  private  opinion  indicated  it  strongly.  I  then  alluded 
more  especially  to  the  brief  report  of  the  lord  chancellor’s  speech  on  Thurs¬ 
day  last,  in  which  he  had  characterized  the  rebellious  portion  of  my  country 
as  a  belligerent  State,  and  the  war  that  was  going  on  as  jusluvi  helium. 

To  this  his  lordship  replied  that  he  thought  more  stress  was  laid  upon 
these  events  than  they  deserved.  The  fact  was  that  a  necessity  seemed  to 
exist  to  define  the  course  of  the  government  in  regard  to  the  participation 
of  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  in  the  impending  conflict.  To  that  end  the 
legal  questions  involved  had  been  referred  to  those  officers  most  conversant 
with  them,  and  their  advice  had  been  taken  in  shaping  the  result.  Their 
conclusion  had  been  that,  as  a  question  merely  of  fact,  a  war  existed.  A 
considerable  number  of  the  States,  at  least  seven,  occupying  a  wide  extent 
of  country,  were  in  open  resistance,  whilst  one  or  more  of  the  others  were 
associating  themselves  in  the  same  struggle,  and  as  yet  there  were  no  indi¬ 
cations  of  any  other  result  than  a  contest  of  arms  more  or  less  severe.  In 
many  preceding  cases,  much  less  formidable  demonstrations  had  been  recog¬ 
nized.  Under  such  circumstances  it  seemed  scarcely  possible  to  avoid  speak¬ 
ing  of  this  in  the  technical  sense  as  juslum  helium,  that  is,  a  war  of  two  sides, 
without  in  any  way  implying  an  opinion  of  its  justice,  as  well  as  to  with¬ 
hold  an  endeavor,  so  far  as  possible,  to  bring  the  management  of  it  within 
the  rules  of  modern  civilized  warfare.  This  was  all  that  was  contemplated 
by  the  Queen’s  proclamation  It  was  designed  to  show  the  purport  of  ex¬ 
isting  laws,  and  to  explain  to  British  subjects  their  liabilities  in  case  they 
should  engage  in  the  war.  And  however  strongly  the  people  of  the  United 
States  might  feel  against  their  enemies,  it  was  hardly  to  be  supposed  that 
in  practice  they  would  now  vary  from  their  uniformly  humane  policy  hereto¬ 
fore  in  endeavoring  to  assuage  and  mitigate  the  horrors  of  war. 

To  all  which  I  answered  that  under  other  circumstances  I  should  be  very 
ready  to  give  my  cheerful  assent  to  this  view  of  his  lordship’s.  But  I  must 
be  permitted  frankly  to  remark  that  the  action  taken  seemed,  at  least  to  my 
mind,  a  little  more  rapid  than  was  absolutely  called  for  by  the  occasion.  It 
might  he  recollected  that  the  new  administration  had  scarcely  had  sixty  days 
to  develop  its  policy  ;  that  the  extent  to  which  all  departments  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  had  been  demoralized  in  the  preceding  administration  was  surely 
understood  here,  at  least  in  part;  that  the  very  organization  upon  which  any 
future  action  was  to  be  predicated  was  to  be  renovated  and  purified  before 
a  hope  could  be  entertained  of  energetic  and  effective  labor.  The  conse¬ 
quence  had  been  that  it  was  but  just  emerging  from  its  difficulties,  and  be¬ 
ginning  to  develop  the  power  of  the  country  to  cope  with  this  rebellion, 
when  the  British  government  took  the  initiative,  and  decided  practically 
that  it  is  a  struggle  of  two  sides.  And  furthermore,  it  pronounced  the  in¬ 
surgents  to  be  a  belligerent  State  before  they  had  ever  shown  their  capacity 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


77 


to  maintain  any  kind  of  warfare  whatever,  except  within  one  of  their  own 
harbors,  and  under  every  possible  advantage.  It  considered  them  a  marine 
power  before  they  had  ever  exhibited  a  single  privateer  on  the  ocean.  I 
said  that  I  was  not  aware  that  a  single  armed  vessel  had  yet  been  issued 
from  any  port  under  the  control  of  these  people.  Surely  this  was  not  the 
case  in  the  instance  which  had  been  relied  upon  in  his  speech  by  his  lordship 
as  authority  for  the  present  action.  There  the  Greeks,  however  small  as  a 
people,  had  long  been  actively  and  effectually  waging  war,  before  the  inter¬ 
position  of  Great  Britain,  and,  to  use  the  language  of  the  government,  as 
quoted  by  himself,  had  “covered  the  sea  with  cruisers.”  It  did  seem  to  me 
therefore  as  if  a  little  more  time  might  have  been  taken  to  form  a  more  com¬ 
plete  estimate  of  the  relative  force  of  the  contending  parties,  and  of  the 
probabilities  of  any  long  drawn  issue.  And  I  did  not  doubt  that  the  view 
taken  by  me  would  be  that  substantially  taken  both  by  the  government  and 
the  people  of  the  United  States.  They  would  inevitably  infer  the  existence 
of  an  intention  more  or  less  marked  to  extend  the  struggle.  For  this  reason 
it  was  that  I  made  my  present  application  to  know  whether  such  a  design 
was  or  was  not  entertained.  For  in  the  alternative  of  an  affirmative  answer 
it  was  as  well  for  us  to  know  it,  as  I  was  bound  to  acknowledge  in  all 
frankness  that  in  that  contingency  I  had  nothing  further  left  to  do  in  Great 
Britain.  I  said  this  with  regret,  as  my  own  feelings  had  been  and  were  of 
the  most  friendly  nature. 

His  lordship  replied  by  an  assurance  that  he  participated  in  those  feelings; 
neither  did  he  see  the  action  that  had  been  thus  far  taken  at  all  in  the  light 
in  which  I  saw  it.  He  believed  that  the  United  States,  in  their  own  pre¬ 
vious  history,  had  furnished  examples  of  action  taken  quite  as  early  as  that 
now  complained  of.  He  instanced  two  cases.  The  first  I  do  not  now 
remember,  for  it  seemed  to  me  not  important  at  the  time;  the  other  was  the 
insurrection  in  Hungary  under  Kossuth,  at  which  period,  he  believed,  they 
had  gone  so  far  as  actually  to  send  an  agent  to  that  country  with  a  view  to 
recognition,  and  that  to  the  great  dissatisfaction  and  against  the  remon¬ 
strances  of  Austria. 

I  replied  only  to  the  second  case,  by  remarking  that  the  incidents  attend¬ 
ing  that  affair  were  not  fresh  in  my  mind,  neither  was  I  sure  that  I  ever 
knew  the  whole  action  of  the  government;  but  it  was  my  impression  that 
the  object  of  the  mission  was  only  confined  to  the  acquisition  of  the  facts 
necessary  to  form  an  opinion,  and  that,  after  they  were  obtained,  no  public 
step  of  any  kind  had  been  taken.  Neither  could  I  myself  recollect  an  in¬ 
stance  in  which  ample  time  had  not  been  given  by  the  United  States  for  the 
development  of  events  sufficiently  decisive  to  justify  any  action  that  might 
have  followed;  for  I  begged  it  to  be  understood  that  the  government  did  not 
mean  at  all  to  deny  that  there  were  cases  in  which  recognition  of  a  revolu¬ 
tionary  government  might  be  both  expedient  and  proper.  The  rule  was 
clear,  that  whenever  it  became  apparent  that  any  organized  form  of  society 
had  advanced  so  far  as  to  prove  its  power  to  defend  and  protect  itself  against 
the  assaults  of  enemies,  and  at  the  same  time  to  manifest  a  capacity  to 
maintain  binding  relations  with  foreign  nations,  then  a  measure  of  recogni¬ 
tion  could  not  be  justly  objected  to  on  any  side.  The  case  was  very  different 
when  such  an  interference  should  take  place,  prior  to  the  establishment  of 
the  proof  required,  as  to  bring  about  a  result  which  would  not  probably 
have  happened  but  for  that  external  agency. 

And  here  I  stop  for  a  moment  to  make  two  remarks  upon  this  part  of  the 
conversation.  The  first  of  these  is,  that  I  have  an  impression  that  the  agent 
to  go  to  Hungary,  alluded  to  by  his  lordship,  was  Mr.  Mann,  the  same  gen¬ 
tleman  who  is  now  figuring  in  the  commission  of  the  confederates  at  this 


78 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


place.  If  in  this  I  am  right,  we  can  be  at  no  loss  for  his  lordship’s  sources 
of  information.  The  other  remark  is,  that  the  Hungarian  precedent  was 
unquestionably  one  in  which  a  very  strong  sympathy  with  the  insurgent 
party  actually  existed  in  the  United  States.  Are  we  therefore  to  infer  a 
similar  impulse  to  actuate  the  precipitate  measure  now  taken  here  ? 

I  did  not  say  this  to  his  lordship,  though  I  might  have  done  so;  but  I  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  observe  that  I  had  come  to  England  prepared  to  present  the  views 
of  my  government  on  the  general  question,  and  that  I  should  have  done  so 
in  full  but  for  the  interposition  of  this  more  immediate  despatch.  At  the 
present  moment  I  should  touch  only  upon  one  point  in  connexion  with  the 
acknowledgment  of  the  insurgents  even  as  a  belligerent  State.  It  seemed 
necessary  to  call  the  attention  of  his  lordship  to  the  fact  which  must  be 
obvious  to  him,  that  as  yet  they  had  not  laid  any  foundation  for  government 
solid  enough  to  deserve  a  moment’s  confidence.  They  had  undertaken  to 
withdraw  certain  States  from  the  government  by  an  arbitrary  act  which 
they  called  secession,  not  known  to  the  Constitution,  the  validity  of  which 
had  at  no  time  been  acknowledged  by  the  people  of  the  United  States,  and 
which  was  now  emphatically  denied;  but  not  content  with  this,  they  had 
gone  on  to  substitute  another  system  among  themselves,  avowedly  based 
upon  the  recognition  of  this  right  of  States  to  withdraw  or  secede  at 
pleasure.  With  such  a  treaty,  I  would  ask,  where  could  be  vested  the  obli¬ 
gation  of  treaties  with  foreign  powers,  of  the  payment  of  any  debts  con¬ 
tracted,  or,  indeed,  of  any  act  performed  in  good  faith  by  the  common 
authority  for  the  time  being  established.  For  my  own  part,  1  fully  believed 
that  such  a  system  could  not  deserve  to  be  denominated,  in  any  sense,  a 
government;  and  therefore  I  could  not  but  think  any  act  performed  here, 
having  a  tendency  to  invest  it  in  the  eye  of  the  world  with  the  notion  of 
form  and  s.ubstance,  could  be  attended  only  with  the  most  complete  disap¬ 
pointment  to  all  the  parties  connected  with  it. 

His  lordship  here  interposed  by  saying  that  there  was  not,  in  his  opinion, 
any  occasion  at  present  for  going  into  this  class  of  arguments,  as  the  gov¬ 
ernment  did  not  contemplate  taking  any  step  that  way.  Should  any  such 
time  arrive  in  the  future,  he  should  be  very  ready  to  listen  to  every  argu¬ 
ment  that  might  be  presented  against  it  on  the  part  of  tiie  United  States. 
At  this  moment  he  thought  we  had  better  confine  ourselves  to  the  matter 
immediately  in  hand. 

I  then  remarked  that  there  was  another  subject  upon  which  I  had  received 
a  despatch,  though  I  should  not,  after  so  long  a  conference,  venture  to  do 
more  than  open  the  matter  to-day.  This  was  a  proposal  to  negotiate  in 
regard  to  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  time  of  war.  The  necessary  powers  had 
been  transmitted  to  me,  together  with  a  form  of  a  convention,  which  I  would 
do  myself  the  honor  to  submit  to  his  consideration  if  there  was  any  dispo¬ 
sition  to  pursue  the  matter  further.  His  lordship  then  briefly  reviewed  the 
past  action  of  the  two  countries  since  the  meeting  of  the  congress  at  Paris, 
and  expressed  the  willingness  of  Great  Britain  to  negotiate;  but  he  seemed 
to  desire  to  leave  the  subject  in  the  hands  of  Lord  Lyons,  to  whom  he  inti¬ 
mated  that  he  had  already  transmitted  authority  to  assent  to  any  modifica¬ 
tion  of  the  only  point  in  issue  which  the  government  of  the  United  States 
might  prefer.  On  that  matter  he  believed  there  would  be  no  difficulty  what¬ 
ever.  Under  these  circumstances,  I  shall  not  press  the  subject  further  at 
this  place  until  I  receive  new  directions  to  that  effect  from  the  department. 

His  lordship  then  observed  that  there  were  two  points  upon  which  he 
should  be  glad  himself  to  be  enlightened,  although  he  did  not  know  whether 
I  was  prepared  to  furnish  the  information.  They  both  related  to  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  proclamation  of  a  blockade.  The  first  question  was  upon  the  nature 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


79 


of  the  blockade.  The  coast  was  very  extensive,  stretching  along  the  At¬ 
lantic  and  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  a  great  way.  Was  it  the  design  of  the  United 
States  to  institute  an  effective  blockade  in  its  whole  extent,  or  to  make  only 
a  declaration  to  that  effect  as  to  the  whole,  and  to  confine  the  actual  blockade 
to  particular  points  ?  Considering  the  uniform  doctrine  of  the  government 
refusing  to  recognize  the  validity  of  mere  paper  blockades,  he  could  hardly 
suppose  they  designed  the  latter. 

To  this  I  replied  that  I  knew  nothing  directly  of  the  President’s  intentions 
on  this  subject;  but  that  inasmuch  as  the  government  had  always  protested 
against  mere  paper  blockades,  I  could  not  suppose  that  it  was  now  disposed 
to  change  its  doctrine.  On  the  contrary,  I  had  every  reason  for  affirming 
that  it  was  the  intention  to  make  an  effective  blockade;  and  this  was  more 
practicable  than  at  first  sight  might  appear  from  the  fact  that  there  were 
few  harbors  along  the  coast,  however  great  its  extent,  and  these  were  not 
very  easy  of  access.  I  thought,  therefore,  that  even  though  the  blockade 
might  not  be  perfect,  it  would  be  sufficiently  so  to  come  within  the  legiti¬ 
mate  construction  of  the  term. 

His  lordship  then  alluded  to  the  other  point,  which  was,  that  the  procla¬ 
mation  assigned  no  precise  date  for  the  commencement  of  the  blockade, 
which  he  believed  was  necessary;  but  he  presumed  that  that  defect  might 
be  remedied  at  any  time.  To  which  I  added  that  I  did  not  doubt  any  such 
omission  of  form  would  be  supplied  as  soon  as  it  was  pointed  out. 

His  lordship  then  made  some  remarks  upon  the  adoption  of  the  tariff;  to 
which  I  replied  that,  in  my  belief,  that  law  was  mainly  passed  as  a  revenue 
measure,  with  incidental  protection;  that  it  was  not  in  any  way  aimed  in  a 
hostile  spirit  to  foreign  nations;  and  that  the  people  of  the  United  States 
would  always  buy  from  Great  Britain  as  much  as  they  could  pay  for,  and 
generally  a  good  deal  more.  This  last  remark  raised  a  smile;  and  thus 
ended  his  lordship’s  series  of  inquiries. 

Having  thus  disposed  of  these  secondary  questions,  I  returned  once  more 
to  the  charge,  and  asked  him  what  answer  I  should  return  to  the  inquiry 
which  1  had  been  directed  to  make.  In  order  to  avoid  any  ambiguity,  I 
took  out  of  my  pocket  your  despatch  No.  4,  and  read  to  him  the  paragraph 
recapitulating  the  substance  of  Mr.  Dallas’s  report  of  his  interview,  and  the 
very  last  paragraph.  I  said  that  it  was  important  to  me  that  1  should  not 
make  any  mistake  in  reporting  this  part  of  the  conversation;  therefore  I 
should  beg  him  to  furnish  me  with  the  precise  language.  He  said  that  he 
did  not  himself  know  what  he  was  to  say.  If  it  was  expected  of  him  to 
give  any  pledge  of  an  absolute  nature  that  his  government  would  not  at 
any  future  time,  no  matter  what  the  circumstances  might  be,  recognize  an 
existing  State  in  America,  it  was  more  than  he  could  promise.  If  I  wished 
an  exact  reply,  my  better  way  would  be  to  address  him  the  inquiry  in 
writing.  I  said  that  I  was  well  aware  of  that,  but  I  had  hoped  that  I  mi  ght 
be  saved  the  necessity  of  doing  so.  On  reflection,  he  proposed  to  avoid 
that  by  offering  to  transmit  to  Lord  Lyons  directions  to  give  such  a  reply  to 
the  President  as,  in  his  own  opinion,  might  be  satisfactory.  To  this  arrange¬ 
ment  I  gave  my  assent,  though  not  without  some  doubt  whether  I  was  doing 
right.  In  truth,  if  1  were  persuaded  that  her  Majesty’s  government  were 
really  animated  by  a  desire  to  favor  the  rebellion,  I  should  demand  a  cate¬ 
gorical  answer;  but  thus  far  I  see  rather  division  of  opinion,  consequent 
upon  the  pressure  of  the  commercial  classes.  Hence  I  preferred  to  give  the 
short  time  demanded,  as  well  as  to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  President  him¬ 
self  the  power  to  decide  upon  the  sufficiency  of  the  reply. 

*  *  *  *  * 

*  *  *  *  * 


* 

* 


80 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


It  may  be  as  well  to  state  that,  both  in  matter  and  manner,  the  conference, 
which  has  been  reported  as  fully  and  as  accurately  as  my  memory  would 
permit,  was  conducted  in  the  most  friendly  spirit. 

*  *  *  *  *  >k 

:}: 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extracts  ] 


No.  4.] 

Sir  : 

*  * 

*  * 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  May  31,  1861. 

*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  5fC 


I  have  likewise  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  a  printed  circular  ad¬ 
dressed  to  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Dallas,  and  dated  the  27th  of  April,  1861, 
transmitting  the  proclamation  of  the  President  declaring  the  blockade  of  the 
ports  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina.  In  this  connexion  it  may  be  as  well 
to  call  your  attention  to  the  manner  in  which  these  measures  are  viewed 
here,  so  far  as  it  may  be  gathered  from  what  is  casually  dropped  by  mem¬ 
bers  of  Parliament  as  well  as  what  is  published  in  the  newspapers.  A  lead¬ 
ing  article  in  the  Times  newspaper  of  this  morning  is  especially  deserving 
of  attention.  It  would  seem  from  this  that  a  scheme  to  overturn  the  old  and 
recognized  British  law  of  blockade,  through  the  means  of  a  joint  declaration 
of  the  European  powers,  somewhat  after  the  fashion  of  the  armed  neutrality 
of  the  last  century,  is  among  the  things  now  floating  in  the  minds  of  people 
here.  Great  Britain,  so  long  known  and  feared  as  the  tyrant  of  the  ocean, 
is  now  to  transform  herself  into  a  champion  of  neutral  rights  and  the  freedom 
of  navigation,  even  into  the  ports  of  all  the  world,  with  or  without  regard 
to  the  interests  of  the  nations  to  whom  they  may  belong. 

*  S-t  5}c 


I  beg  to  call  your  attention  to  the  language  used  by  Lord  John  Russell 
and  by  Mr.  Gladstone  in  the  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  last  evening,  in 
relation  to  a  nassing  remark  of  Sir  John  Ramsden  upon  American  affairs  on 
the  preceding  Monday.  They  indicate  what  I  believe  to  be  true,  that  the 
feeling  toward  the  United  States  is  improving  in  the  higher  circles  here.  It 
was  never  otherwise  than  favorable  among  the  people  at  large.  I  was  my- 
self  present  and  heard  Sir  John  Ramsden  on  Monday  night.  His  remark 
was  partially  cheered  by  the  opposition,  who  were  ready  to  receive  anything 
favorably  from  a  new  convert  ;  but  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  it  met  with 
decided  condemnation  from  a  large  majority  of  the  members.  The  proof  of 
this  was  established  last  night  in  the  manner  in  which  the  castigation  of 
Mr.  Gladstone,  which  I  also  witnessed,  was  listened  to  and  approved.  Sir 
John  seems  to  have  gained  no  laurels  in  this  conflict.  The  ministry  sustained 
themselves  in  the  division  last  night,  which  is,  I  presume,  the  decisive  test 
for  the  year.  I  believe  this  may  be  regarded  as  a  favorable  result  to  the 


CORRESPONDENCE.  81 

United  States.  I  shall  reserve  some  general  observations  on  the  subject  for 
a  separate  despatch  in  the  early  part  of  next  week. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  14.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  3,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatch  of  May  IT  (No.  1)  has  been  received. 

Your  speech  at  Liverpool  was  equally  prudent  and  happy.  Your  prompt¬ 
ness  in  passing  through  the  town  to  the  seat  of  government,  although  to  be 
regretted  in  some  respects,  is,  in  view  of  the  circumstances,  approved. 

Every  instruction  you  have  received  from  this  department  is  full  of  evi¬ 
dence  of  the  fact  that  the  principal  danger  in  the  present  insurrection  which 
the  President  has  apprehended  was  that  of  foreign  intervention,  aid,  or  sym¬ 
pathy  ;  and.  especially  of  such  intervention,  aid,  or  sympathy  on  the  part  of 
the  government  of  Great  Britain. 

The  justice  of  this  apprehension  has  been  vindicated  by  the  following  facts, 
namely  : 

1.  A  guarded  reserve  on  the  part  of  the  British  secretary  of  state,  when 
Mr.  Dallas  presented  to  him  our  protest  against  the  recognition  of  the  insur¬ 
gents,  which  seemed  to  imply  that,  in  some  conditions,  not  explained  to  us, 
such  a  recognition  might  be  made. 

2.  The  contracting  of  an  engagement  by  the  government  of  Great  Britain 
with  that  of  France,  without  consulting  us,  to  the  effect  that  both  governments 
should  adopt  one  and  the  same  course  of  procedure  in  regard  to  the  insur¬ 
rection. 

3.  Lord  John  Russell’s  announcement  to  Mr.  Dallas  that  he  was  not 
unwilling  to  receive  the  so-called  commissioners  of  the  insurgents  unoffi¬ 
cially 

4.  The  issue  of  the  Queen’s  proclamation,  remarkable,  first,  for  the  circum¬ 
stances  under  which  it  was  made,  namely,  on  the  very  day  of  your  arrival  in 
London,  which  had  been  anticipated  so  far  as  to  provide  for  your  reception 
by  the  British  secretary,  but  without  affording  you  the  interview  promised 
before  any  decisive  action  should  be  adopted;  secondly,  the  tenor  of  the 
proclamation  itself,  which  seems  to  recognize,  in  a  vague  manner,  indeed, 
but  does  seem  to  recognize,  the  insurgents  as  a  belligerent  national  power. 

That  proclamation,  unmodified  and  unexplained,  would  leave  us  no  alter¬ 
native  but  to  regard  the  government  of  Great  Britain  as  questioning  our 
free  exercise  of  all  the  rights  of  self-defence  guaranteed  to  us  by  our  Consti¬ 
tution  and  the  laws  of  nature  and  of  nations  to  suppress  the  insurrection. 

I  should  have  proceeded  at  once  to  direct  you  to  communicate  to  the 
British  government  the  definitive  views  of  the  President  on  the  grave  sub¬ 
ject,  if  there  were  not  especial  reasons  for  some  little  delay. 

These  reasons  are,  first,  Mr.  Thouvenel  has  informed  our  representative  at 
Paris  that  the  two  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  France  were  preparing, 
and  »,'ould,  without  delay,  address  communications  to  this  government  con¬ 
cerning  the  attitude  to  be  assumed  by  them  in  regard  to  the  insurrection. 
Their  communications  are  hourly  expected. 

Second.  You  have  already  asked,  and,  it  is  presumed,  will  have  obtained, 
an  interview  with  the  British  secretary,  and  will  have  been  able  to  present 

6 


82 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


the  general  views  of  this  government,  and  to  learn  definitely  the  purposes  of 
Great  Britain  in  the  matter,  after  it  shall  have  learned  how  unsatisfactory 
the  action  of  the  British  government  hitherto  has  been  to  the  government  of 
the  United  States. 

The  President  is  solicitous  to  show  his  high  appreciation  of  every  demon¬ 
stration  of  consideration  for  the  United  States  which  the  British  government 
feels  itself  at  liberty  to  make.  He  instructs  me,  therefore,  to  say  that  the 
prompt  and  cordial  manner  in  which  you  were  received,  under  peculiar  cir¬ 
cumstances  arising  out  of  domestic  afflictions  which  had  befallen  her 
Majesty  and  the  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  is  very  gratifying  to 
this  government. 

A  year  ago  the  differences  which  had  partially  estranged  the  British  and 
the  American  people  from  each  other  seemed  to  have  been  removed  forever. 
It  is  painful  to  reflect  that  that  ancient  alienation  has  risen  up  again  under 
circumstances  which  portend  great  social  evils,  if  not  disaster,  to  both 
countries. 

Referring  you  to  previous  instructions,  and  reserving  further  directions 
until  we  shall  have  your  own  report  of  the  attitude  of  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  as  defined  by  itself  for  our  consideration, 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract] 

No.  5.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  June  T,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  several  de¬ 
spatches,  No.  7,  of  the  11th  of  May,  with  copies  of  the  correspondence 
relating  to  the  slave  trade  and  to  San  Domingo  ;  No.  8,  of  the  20th,  en¬ 
closing  the  commission  of  Neil  McLachlan,  esq.,  as  consul  at  Leith  ; 
and  No.  9,  of  the  21st,  enclosing  the  commission  of  Edward  Leavenworth, 
esq.,  as  consul  at  Sydney,  New  South  Wales.  These  commissions  have 
been  duly  transmitted  to  her  Majesty’s  secretary  for  foreign  affairs,  with 
the  customary  request  for  recognition  The  earlier  papers  have  been  care¬ 
fully  read,  and  will  be  made  the  subject  of  consideration  at  the  next  con¬ 
ference,  which  I  purpose  to  ask  of  his  lordship  at  an  early  day. 

1  think  1  can  report  with  confidence  a  considerable  amelioration  of  senti¬ 
ment  here  towards  the  govern ment  of  the  United  States.  This  may  be 
partly  ascribed  to  the  impression  made  by  the  news  received  of  vigorous 
and  effective  measures  in  America,  and  partly  to  a  sense  that  the  preceding 
action  of  her  Majesty’s  ministers  has  been  construed  to  mean  more  than 
they  intended  by  it.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  it  had  opened  a  most  grave 
question  touching  the  use  that  might  be  made  of  all  the  ports  of  Great 
Britain  as  a  shelter  for  captures  by  privateers  purporting  to  be  authorized 
by  the  rebellious  States.  After  a  careful  examination  of  the  subject,  I  had 
come  to  the  conclusion  that,  without  some  further  positive  action,  the  pre¬ 
ceding  practice  in  this  country  would  authorize  the  retention  of  such  cap¬ 
tures  until  condemned  as  prizes  in  some  admiralty  court  set  up  by  the 
insurgents  at  home  and  the  sale  of  them  afterwards.  The  effect  of  this,  in 
giving  them  encouragement,  can  scarcely  be  estimated.  It  would  at  once 
enlist  in  their  behalf  most  of  the  daring  and  desperate  adventurers  of  every 
nation,  whose  sole  object  is  plunder,  and  would  initiate  a  struggle  between 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


83 


a  community  of  planters,  who  have  nothing  to  lose  on  the  ocean,  and  a 
commercial  nation  which  whitens  every  sea  with  the  sails  of  a  peaceful 
navigation.  That  so  serious  a  consequence  as  this  was  ever  intended  to 
flow  from  the  precipitate  act  of  the  government  here  I  did  not  believe. 
Hence  it  was  with  great  satisfaction  that  I  learned,  on  Monday,  that  the 
question  would  be  proposed  on  that  day  by  Mr.  Forster  in  the  House  of 
Commons,  which  you  will  have  seen  before  this  in  the  record  of  the  pro¬ 
ceedings  of  that  body,  and  that  it  would  be  fully  answered  by  Lord  John 
Russell  on  behalf  of  her  Majesty’s  ministers.  This  answer,  as  since  made, 
may  be  regarded  as  satisfactory,  so  far  as  it  closes  the  door  to  one  bad 
effect  of  the  proclamation  ;  but  it  does  not  remove  the  main  difficulty  of 
putting  the  legitimate  and  the  spurious  authority  in  the  same  category. 
Although  in  practice  the  operation  is  favorable  to  the  former,  in  theory  the 
admission  of  equality  is  equally  vicious.  The  only  consolation  is  to  be 
found  in  the  evident  desire  betrayed  by  the  government  here  to  avoid  in 
any  way  a  collision  with  the  United  States  or  any  direct  encouragement  of 
the  insurgents. 

This  is  the  day  assigned  for  the  consideration  of  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Gregory,  the  member  for  Galway.  I  understand  that  he  means  to  enter 
largely  into  the  question  of  recognition  of  the  confederates,  and  that  he 
will  probably  be  answered  as  fully.  It  is  stated  to  me  that  the  ministry  are 
willing  to  have  the  discussion  go  on.  For  obvious  reasons  I  do  not  think 
it  advisable  to  attend  the  debate  myself;  but  I  shall  take  measures  to 
obtain  the  best  information  of  the  actual  state  of  feeling  in  the  House  from 
personal  observation,  and  to  transmit  my  own  conclusions  in  the  next  de¬ 
spatch.  Unfortunately  it  will  be  necessary  to  close  the  present  one  before 
evening,  in  order  to  be  in  time  for  the  steamer. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  16.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  8,  1861. 

Sir:  I  enclose  a  copy  of  a  note  of  this  date  addressed  to  Lord  Lyons, 
which  will  dispel  any  uncertainty  which  the  British  government  may  enter¬ 
tain  in  regard  to  our  recognition  of  a  rule  of  international  law  which  they 
may  deem  important. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dc.,  dc.,  dc. 


Air.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  8,  1861. 

My  I  jOrd:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the 
5th  instant,  with  the  accompanying  papers,  relative  to  a  claim  in  the  case 
of  the  cargo  of  the  bark  Winifred,  a  part  of  which  is  represented  to  belong 
to  British  subjects. 


84 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


In  reply,  I  regret  that  at  this  juncture  I  do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  interfere 
in  the  case,  as  it  is  understood  that  the  usual  proceedings  in  the  prize  court 
at  New  York  have  been  set  on  foot  against  the  vessel  and  her  cargo. 

If,  however,  that  court  shall  be  satisfied  of  the  ownership  by  British  sub¬ 
jects  of  the  part  of  the  cargo  claimed,  it  cannot  be  doubted  that  restitution 
will  be  decreed,  as  this  government  recognizes  the  right  of  the  property  of 
a  friendly  nation  in  the  vessels  of  an  insurgent  to  be  exempted  from  con¬ 
demnation. 

The  papers  which  accompanied  your  note  are  herewith  returned. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  lordship’s 
most  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  Right  Honorable  Lord  Lyons,  &c.,  &g .,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  15.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  8,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  pleasure  of  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  your  despatch 
of  May  21,  (No.  2,)  which  contains  a  report  of  the  conversation  which  you 
had  held  with  Lord  John  Russell  on  the  18th  day  of  that  month. 

This  government  insists,  as  all  the  world  might  have  known  that  it  must 
and  would,  under  all  circumstances,  insist,  on  the  integrity  of  the  Union,  as 
the  chief  element  of  national  life.  Since,  after  trials  of  every  form  of  for¬ 
bearance  and  conciliation,  it  has  been  rendered  certain  and  apparent  that 
this  paramount  and  vital  object  can  be  saved  only  by  our  acceptance  of 
civil  war  as  an  indispensable  condition,  that  condition,  with  all  its  hazards 
and  deplorable  evils,  has  not  been  declined.  The  acceptance,  however,  is 
attended  with  a  strong  desire  and  fixed  purpose  that  the  war  shall  be  as 
short  and  accompanied  by  as  little  suffering  as  possible.  Foreign  interven¬ 
tion,  aid,  or  sympathy  in  favor  of  the  insurgents,  especially  on  the  part  of 
Great  Britain,  manifestly  could  only  protract  and  aggravate  the  war.  Ac¬ 
cordingly,  Mr.  Dallas,  under  instructions  from  the  President,  in  an  interview 
conceded  to  him  by  the  British  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  pre¬ 
sented  our  protest  against  any  such  intervention. 

Lord  John  Russell  answered  with  earnestness  that  there  was  not  in  the 
British  government  the  least  desire  to  grasp  at  any  advantages  which  might 
be  supposed  to  arise  from  the  unpleasant  domestic  differences  in  the  United 
States,  but,  on  the  contrary,  that  they  would  be  highly  gratified  if  those 
differences  were  adjusted,  and  the  Union  restored  to  its  former  unbroken 
position. 

Mr.  Dallas  then,  as  he  reported  to  us,  endeavored  to  impress  upon  his 
lordship  how  important  it  must  be  that  Great  Britain  and  France  should 
abstain,  at  least  for  a  considerable  time,  from  doing  what,  by  encouraging 
groundless  hopes,  (of  the  insurgents,)  would  widen  a  breach  still  thought 
capable  of  being  closed;  but  his  lordship  seemed  to  think  that  the  matter 
was  not  ripe  for  decision,  one  way  or  another,  and  remarked  that  what  he. 
had  already  said  was  all  that  at  present  it  was  in  his  power  to  say. 

Upon  this  report  you  were  instructed  to  inform  her  Britannic  Majesty’s 
government  that  the  President  regarded  the  reply  made  by  his  lordship  to 
Mr.  Dallas’s  suggestion  as  possibly  indicating  a  policy  which  this  government 
would  be  obliged  to  deem  injurious  to  its  rights,  and  derogating  from  its 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


85 


dignity.  This  government  thought  the  reply  of  the  secretary  unjustifiably 
abrupt  and  reserved.  That  abruptness  and  reserve  unexplained,  left  us 
under  a  seeming  necessity  of  inferring  that  the  British  government  might 
be  contemplating  a  policy  of  encouragement  to  the  insurgents  which  would 
widen  the  breach  here  which  we  believed  it  possible  to  heal  if  such  encour¬ 
agement  should  not  be  extended.  A  vital  interest  obliged  the  United  States 
to  seek  explanation,  or  to  act  on  the  inference  it  thus  felt  itself  obliged  to 
adopt. 

Your  despatch  of  the  21st  of  May,  (No.  2,)  which  has  just  been  received, 
shows  how  you  have  acquitted  yourself  of  the  duty  imposed  upon  you.  After 
stating  our  complaint  to  his  lordship,  you  very  properly  asked  an  elucidation 
of  his  meaning  in  the  reply  to  which  exception  had  been  taken  by  us,  and 
very  rightly,  as  we  think,  asked  whether  it  was  the  intention  of  her  Majesty’s 
ministers  to  adopt  a  policy  which  would  have  the  effect  to  widen,  if  not  to 
make  irreparable,  a  breach  which  we  believe  yet  to  be  entirely  manageable 
by  ourselves.  His  lordship  disclaimed  any  such  intention.  A  friendly  argu¬ 
ment,  however,  then  arose  between  the  secretary  and  yourself  concerning 
what  should  be  the  form  of  the  answer  to  us  which  his  lordship  could  prop¬ 
erly  give,  and  which  would,  at  the  same  time,  be  satisfactory  to  this  gov¬ 
ernment.  The  question  was  finally  solved  in  the  most  generous  manner  by 
the  proposition  of  his  lordship  that  he  would  instruct  Lord  Lyons  to  give 
such  a  reply  to  the  President  as  might,  in  his  own  opinion,  be  satisfactory, 
which  proposition  you  accepted. 

I  hasten  to  say,  by  direction  of  the  President,  that  your  course  in  this 
proceeding  is  fully  approved.  This  government  has  no  disposition  to  lift 
questions  of  even  national  pride  or  sensibility  up  to  the  level  of  diplomatic 
controversy,  because  it  earnestly  and  ardently  desires  to  maintain  peace, 
harmony,  and  cordial  friendship  with  Great  Britain.  Lord  John  Russell’s 
proposition,  by  authorizing  the  President  to  put  the  most  favorable  con¬ 
struction  possible  upon  the  response  which  was  deemed  exceptionable, 
removes  the  whole  difficulty  without  waiting  for  the  intervention  of  Lord 
Lyons.  You  will  announce  this  conclusion  to  Lord  John  Russell,  and  inform 
him  that  the  settlement  of  the  affair  in  so  friendly  a  spirit  affords  this  gov¬ 
ernment  sincere  satisfaction. 

Your  conversation  with  the  British  secretary  incidentally  brought  into 
debate  the  Queen’s  late  proclamation,  (which  seems  to  us  designed  to  raise 
the  insurgents  to  the  level  of  a  belligerent  state;)  the  language  employed 
by  her  Majesty’s  ministers  in  both  houses  of  Parliament,  the  tone  of  the 
public  press,  and  of  private  opinion,  and  especially  a  speech  of  the  lord 
chancellor,  in  which  he  had  characterized  the  insurgents  as  a  belligerent 
State,  and  the  civil  war  which  they  are  waging  against  the  United  States 
as  justum  helium. 

The  opinions  which  you  expressed  on  these  matters,  and  their  obvious 
tendency  to  encourage  the  insurrection  and  to  protract  and  aggravate  the 
civil  war,  are  just,  and  meet  our  approbation.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  the 
purpose  of  this  government,  if  possible,  consistently  with  the  national  wel¬ 
fare  and  honor,  to  have  no  serious  controversy  with  Great  Britain  at  all  ; 
and  if  this  shall  ultimately  prove  impossible,  then  to  have  both  the  defen¬ 
sive  position  and  the  clear  right  on  our  side.  With  this  view,  this  govern¬ 
ment,  as  you  were  made  aware  by  my  despatch  No.  10,  has  determined  to 
pass  over  without  official  complaint  the  publications  of  the  British  press, 
manifestations  of  adverse  individual  opinion  in  social  life,  and  the  speeches 
of  British  statesmen,  and  even  those  of  her  Majesty’s  ministers  in  Parlia¬ 
ment,  so  long  as  they  are  not  authoritatively  adopted  by  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment.  We  honor  and  respect  the  freedom  of  debate,  and  the  freedom  of 


86 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


the  press.  We  indulge  no  apprehensions  of  danger  to  our  rights  and  inter¬ 
ests  from  any  discussion  to  which  they  may  be  subjected,  in  either  form,  in 
any  place.  Sure  as  we  are  that  the  transaction  now  going  on  in  our  country 
involves  the  progress  of  civilization  and  humanity,  and  equally  sure  that 
our  attitude  in  it  is  right,  and  no  less  sure  that  our  press  and  our  statesmen 
are  equal  in  ability  and  influence  to  any  in  Europe,  we  shall  have  no  cause  to 
grieve  if  Great  Britain  shall  leave  to  us  the  defence  of  the  independence  of 
nations  and  the  rights  of  human  nature. 

My  despatch  No.  14  presented  four  distinct  grounds  on  which  this  gov¬ 
ernment  apprehended  a  policy  on  the  part  of  her  Majesty’s  government  to 
intervene  in  favor  of  the  insurgents,  or  to  lend  them  aid  and  sympathy.  The 
first  ground  was  the  reserve  practiced  by  the  British  secretary  for  foreign 
affairs  in  his  conversation  with  Mr.  Dallas,  referred  to  in  the  earlier  part  of 
this  despatch.  I  have  already  stated  that  the  explanations  made  and  offered 
by  Lord  John  Russell  have  altogether  removed  this  ground  from  debate. 

The  second  was  the  contracting  of  an  engagement  by  the  government  of 
Great  Britain  with  that  of  France,  without  consulting  us,  to  the  effect  that 
both  governments  would  adopt  one  and  the  same  course  of  proceeding  in 
regard  to  the  subject  of  intervention  in  our  domestic  affairs.  You  were' in¬ 
formed  in  my  despatch  No.  10  that,  as  this  proceeding  did  not  necessarily 
imply  hostile  feelings  towards  the  United  States,  we  should  not  formally 
complain  of  it,  but  should  rest  content  with  a  resolution  to  hold  intercourse 
only  with  each  of  those  States  severally,  giving  due  notice  to  both  that  the 
circumstance  that  a  concert  between  the  two  powers  in  any  proposition  each 
might  offer  to  us  would  not  modify  in  the  least  degree  the  action  of  the 
United  States  upon  it. 

The  third  ground  was  Lord  John  Russell’s  announcement  to  Mr.  Dallas 
that  he  was  not  unwilling  to  receive  the  so-called  commissioners  of  the  insur¬ 
gents  unofficially.  On  this  point  you  already  have  instructions,  to  which 
nothing  need  now  be  added. 

The  fourth  ground  is  the  Queen’s  proclamation,  exceptionable  first  for  the 
circumstances  under  which  it  was  issued,  and  secondly,  for  the  matter  of  that 
important  state  paper. 

My  despatch  No.  14  apprised  you  of  our  reason  for  expecting  a  direct 
communication  on  this  subject  from  her  Majesty’s  government.  I  reserve 
instructions  on  this  fourth  ground,  as  I  did  in  that  despatch,  expecting  to 
discuss  it  fully  when  the  promised  direct  communication  shall  bring  it  au¬ 
thoritatively  before  this  government  in  the  form  chosen  by  the  British  gov¬ 
ernment  itself. 

My  silence  on  the  subject  of  the  defence  of  that  proclamation  made  by 
Lord  John  Russell  in  his  conversation  with  you  being  grounded  on  that 
motive  for  delay,  it  is  hardly  necessary  to  saj  that  we  are  not  to  be  regarded 
as  conceding  any  positions  which  his  lordship  assumed,  and  which  you  so 
ably  contested  on  the  occasion  referred  to  in  your  despatch.  Your  argument 
on  that  point  is  approved  by  the  President. 

The  British  government  having  committed  the  subject  of  the  proposed 
modifications  of  international  law  on  the  subject  of  the  right  of  neutrals  in 
maritime  war  to  Lord  Lyons  before  you  were  prepared  by  our  instructions 
to  present  the  subject  to  that  government,  no  objection  is  now  seen  to  the 
discussion  of  that  matter  here.  No  communication  on  any  subject  herein 
discussed  has  yet  been  received  from  Lord  Lyons.  Despatches  which  you 
must  have  received  before  this  time  will  have  enabled  you  to  give  entire 
satisfaction  to  his  lordship  concerning  the  blockade.  We  claim  to  have  a 
right  to  close  the  ports  which  have  been  seized  by  insurrectionists,  for  the 
purpose  of  suppressing  the  attempted  revolution,  and  no  one  could  justly 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


87 


complain  if  we  had  done  so  decisively  and  peremptorily.  In  resorting  to  the 
milder  and  very  lenient  form  of  the  blockade,  we  have  been  governed  by  a 
desire  to  avoid  imposing  hardships  unnecessarily  onerous  upon  foreign  as 
well  as  domestic  commerce.  The  President’s  proclamation  was  a  notice  of 
the  intention  to  blockade,  and  it  was  provided  that  ample  warning  should 
be  given  to  vessels  approaching  and  vessels  seeking  to  leave  the  blockaded 
ports  before  capture  should  be  allowed.  The  blockade  from  the  time  it  takes 
effect  is  everywhere  rendered  actual  and  effective. 

Your  remarks  on  the  subject  of  the  late  tariff  law  were  judicious.  The 
subject  of  revenue  policy  in  the  altered  condition  of  affairs  is  not  unlikely 
to  receive  the  attention  of  Congress. 

We  are  gratified  by  the  information  you  have  given  us  of  the  friendly 
spirit  which  has  thus  far  marked  the  deportment  and  conversation  of  the 
British  government  in  your  official  intercourse  with  it. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 


London,  June  8,  1861. 

Dear  Sir  :  I  send  herewith  a  copy  of  the  London  Times  of  this  morning, 
containing  an  account  of  the  termination  of  Mr.  Gregory’s  movement. 

Subsequent  events  only  can  now  do  anything  to  improve  the  prospect  of 
the  confederates  at  this  court.  Yours,  &c., 

C.  F.  ADAMS. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward,  Washington,  D.  G. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  8.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  June  14,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  your  despatches  No.  10, 
dated  the  21st  of  May,  and  No.  11.  dated  on  the  24th,  with  a  copy  of  a 
letter  from  Mr.  0.  Vandenburgh,  and  also  a  printed  circular  from  the  de¬ 
partment  of  the  20 tli  of  May,  relating  to  purchases  made  here  of  articles 
contraband  of  war. 

The  intelligence  of  the  feeling  expressed  in  America  upon  the  reception 
of  the  Queen’s  proclamation  was  fully  expected  by  me,  so  that  it  excited  no 
surprise,  and  much  of  the  course  of  your  argument  in  your  despatch  will 
be  found  to  have  been  already  adopted  in  my  conference  with  Lord  John 
Russell,  an  account  of  which  is  before  this  time  in  your  hands. 

However  this  may  be,  my  duty  was  plain.  I  applied  for  an  interview 
with  Lord  John  Russell,  and  lie  appointed  one  for  ten  o’clock  on  Wednesday, 
the  12th,  at  his  own  house.  After  some  slight  preliminary  talk,  1  observed 
to  him  that  I  had  been  instructed  to  press  upon  her  Majesty’s  government 
the  expediency  of  early  action  on  the  subject  of  privateering;  that  in  the 


88 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


present  state  of  excitement  in  the  United  States  consequent  upon  the 
measures  which  it  had  felt  it  necessary  to  adopt,  I  did  not  know  of  any¬ 
thing  which  would  be  so  likely  to  allay  it  as  an  agreement  on  this  point. 
His  lordship  then  said  that  he  did  not  know  whether  I  knew  it,  but  the  fact 
was  that  Mr.  Dayton  had  made  a  proposition  to  France  for  negotiation  on 
the  basis  of  the  articles  as  agreed  upon  in  Paris.  France  had  communicated 
the  fact  through  her  minister,  the  Compte  de  Flahault;  and  he  intimated 
that  there  had  been  a  cabinet  conversation  on  the  subject,  without  arriving 
at  a  decision.  I  then  referred  to  what  had  passed  at  our  former  interview.  I 
mentioned  my  proposal  to  negotiate,  and  the  inclination  shown  by  his  lord- 
ship  to  leave  the  subject  with  Lord  Lyons,  with  authority  to  arrange  the 
only  point  in  dispute  as  the  government  at  Washington  might  desire.  There 
I  had  left  the  matter.  His  lordship  replied  that  he  did  not  mean  to  be  quite 
so  understood.  His  intention  was  to  say,  that  having  agreed  upon  the  three 
articles,  he  should  be  ready  to  consent  to.  the  total  omission  of  the  fourth 
article,  if  that  would  be  agreeable  at  Washington.  I  said  that  1  had  not  so 
understood  him,  and  from  my  present  recollection,  I  am  confident  that  my 
report  of  his  language  was  not  incorrect. 

«1*  »  L*  «!/ 

^ 

I  next  approached  the  most  delicate  portion  of  my  task.  I  descanted 
upon  the  irritation  produced  in  America  by  the  Queen’s  proclamation,  upon 
the  construction  almost  universally  given  to  it,  as  designed  to  aid  the  in¬ 
surgents  by  raising  them  to  the  rank  of  a  belligerent  State,  and  upon  the 
very  decided  tone  taken  by  the  President  in  my  despatches  in  case  any  such 
design  was  really  entertained.  1  added  that  from  my  own  observation  of 
what  had  since  occurred  here,  I  had  not  been  able  to  convince  myself  of  the 
existence  of  such  a  design.  But  it  was  not  to  be  disguised  that  the  fact  of 
the  continued  stay  of  the  pseudo  commissioners  in  this  city,  and  still  more 
the  knowledge  that  they  had  been  admitted  to  more  or  less  interviews  with 
his  lordship,  was  calculated  to  excite  uneasiness.  Indeed,  it  had  already 
given  great  dissatisfaction  to  my  government.  I  added,  as  moderately  as  I 
could,  that  in  all  frankness  any  further  protraction  of  this  relation  could 
scarcely  fail  to  be  viewed  by  us  as  hostile  in  spirit,  and  to  require  some 
corresponding  action  accordingly. 

His  lordship  then  reviewed  the  course  of  Great  Britain.  He  explained 
the  mode  in  which  they  had  consulted  with  France,  prior  to  any  action  at 
all,  as  to  the  reception  of  the  deputation  from  the  so-called  Confederate 
States.  It  had  been  the  custom  both  in  France  and  here  to  receive  such 
persons  unofficially  for  a  long  time  back.  Poles,  Hungarians,  Italians,  &c., 
&c.,  had  been  allowed  interviews,  to  hear  what  they  had  to  say.  But  this 
did  not  imply  recognition  in  their  case  any  more  than  in  ours.  He  added 
that  he  had  seen  the  gentlemen  once  some  time  ago,  and  once  more  some 
time  since;  lie  had  no  expectation  of  seeing  them  any  more. 

I  shall  continue  my  relations  here  until  I  discover  some  action  apparently 
in  conflict  with  it,  or  receive  specific  orders  from  the  department  dictating 
an  opposite  course 

I  ventured  to  repeat  my  regret  that  the  proclamation  had  been  so  hastily 
issued,  and  adverted  to  the  fact  that  it  seemed  contrary  to  the  agreement 
said  to  have  been  proposed  by  Mr.  Dallas  and  concurred  in  by  his  lordship, 
to  postpone  all  action  until  1  should  arrive,  possessed  with  all  the  views  of 
the  new  administration.  But  still,  though  I  felt  that  much  mischief  had 
ensued  in  the  creation  of  prejudices  in  the  United  States,  not  now  easy  to 
be  eradicated,  I  was  not  myself  disposed  in  any  part  of  my  conduct  to 
aggravate  the  evil.  My  views  had  been  much  modified  by  opportunities  of 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


89 


more  extended  conversation  with  persons  of  weight  in  Great  Britain,  by  the 
improved  tone  of  the  press,  by  subsequent  explanations  in  Parliament,  by  the 
prohibition  of  all  attempts  to  introduce  prizes  into  British  ports,  and,  lastly, 
by  the  unequivocal  expression  of  sentiment  in  the  case  of  Mr.  Gregory  when 
the  time  came  for  him  to  press  his  motion  of  recognition.  I  trusted  that 
nothing  new  might  occur  to  change  the  current  again,  for  nothing  was  so 
unfortunate  as  the  effect  of  a  recurrence  of  reciprocal  irritations,  however 
trifling,  between  countries,  in  breaking  up  the  good  understanding  which  it 
was  always  desirable  to  preserve. 

His  lordship  agreed  to  this,  but  remarked  that  he  could  not  but  think  the 
complaint  of  the  proclamation,  though  natural  enough  perhaps  at  this 
moment,  was  really  ill  founded.  He  went  over  the  ground  once  more  which 
he  occupied  in  the  former  interview — the  necessity  of  doing  something  to 
relieve  the  officers  of  their  ships  from  the  responsibility  of  treating  these 
persons  as  pirates  if  they  met  them  on  the  seas.  For  his  part,  he  could  not 
believe  the  United  States  would  persevere  in  the  idea  of  hanging  them,  for 
it  was  not  in  consonance  with  their  well-known  character.  But  what  would 
be  their  own  situation  if  they  should  be  found  practicing  upon  a  harsher 
system  than  the  Americans  themselves. 

Here  was  a  very  large  territory — a  number  of  States — and  people  counted 
by  millions,  who  were  in  a  state  of  actual  war.  The  fact  was  undeniable 
and  the  embarrassment  unavoidable.  Under  such  circumstances  the  law 
officers  of  the  crown  advised  the  policy  which  had  been  adopted.  It  was 
designed  only  as  a  preventive  to  immediate  evils.  The  United  States  should 
not  have  thought  hard  of  it.  They  meant  to  be  entirely  neutral. 

I  replied  that  we  asked  no  more  than  that.  We  desired  no  assistance. 
Our  objection  to  this  act  was  that  it  was  practical^  not  an  act  of  neutrality. 
It  had  depressed  the  spirits  of  the  friends  of  the  government.  It  had  raised 
the  courage  of  the  insurgents.  We  construed  it  as  adverse,  because  we 
could  not  see  the  necessity  of  such  immediate  haste.  These  people  were  not 
a  navigating  people.  They  had  not  a  ship  on  the  ocean.  They  had  made 
no  prizes,  so  far  as  I  knew,  excepting  such  as  they  had  caught  by  surprises. 
Even  now,  I  could  not  learn  that  they  had  fitted  out  anything  more  than  a 
few  old  steamboats,  utterly  unable  to  make  any  cruise  on  the  ocean,  and 
scarcely  strong  enough  to  bear  a  cannon  of  any  calibre.  But  it  was  useless 
to  go  over  this  any  more.  The  thing  was  now  done.  All  that  we  could 
hope  was  that  the  later  explanations  would  counteract  the  worst  effects  that 
we  had  reason  to  apprehend  from  it ;  and,  at  any  rate,  there  was  one  com¬ 
pensation,  the  act  had  released  the  government  of  the  United  States  from 
responsibility  for  any  misdeeds  of  the  rebels  towards  Great  Britain.  If  any 
of  their  people  should  capture  or  maltreat  a  British  vessel  on  the  ocean,  the 
reclamation  must  be  made  only  upon  those  who  had  authorized  the  wrong. 
The  United  States  would  not  be  liable. 

I  added  that  I  could  not  close  the  interview  without  one  word  upon  a 
subject  on  which  I  had  no  instructions.  I  saw  by  the  newspapers  an  account 
of  a  considerable  movement  of  troops  to  Canada.  In  our  situation  this  would 
naturally  excite  attention  at  home,  and  I  was  therefore  desirous  to  learn 
whether  they  were  ordered  with  any  reference  to  possible  difficulties  with 
us.  His  lordship  said  that  the  country  had  been  denuded  of  troops  for  some 
time  back,  and  it  was  regarded  only  as  a  proper  measure  of  precaution,  in 
the  present  disordered  condition  of  things  in  the  United  States,  to  restore  a 
part  of  them.  He  said  he  did  not  know  but  what  we  might  do  something. 
He  intimated  a  little  feeling  of  uneasiness  at  the  mission  of  Mr.  Aslimun, 
without  any  notice  given  to  them  of  his  purposes  ;  and  he  likewise  said 
something  about  a  threat  uttered  by  yourself  to  Lord  Lyons  to  seize  a  British 


90 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


vessel  on  Lake  Ontario  without  ceremony.  To  this  I  replied,  that  inasmuch 
as  I  had  understood  Mr.  Ashmun’s  mission  had  been  made  known  to  the 
governor  of  Canada,  it  did  not  seem  to  me  that  it  couM  be  of  much  concealed 
significance  ;  and  that  as  to  the  other  matter,  if  there  was  any  reality  in  the 
threat,  it  surely  was  an  odd  way  of  proceeding  to  furnish  at  once  the  warning 
in  time  to  provide  against  its  execution. 

xL»  vL*  vL»  xL*  >1/  ^ 

/Jv  /JS  p  -  /T.  *TX 

I  did  not  touch  at  all  on  the  subject  of  the  blockade,  as  referred  to  in  your 
despatch  No.  10,  for  the  reason  that  I  do  not  now  understand  the  government 
as  disposed  in  any  way  to  question  its  validity  or  to  obstruct  it.  On  the 
contrary,  his  lordship,  incidentally  referring  to  it  in  this  interview,  said  that 
instructions  had  been  sent  out  to  the  naval  officers  in  command  to  respect 
it,  and  never  themselves  to  seek  to  enter  any  of  the  ports  blockaded,  unless 
from  some  urgent  necessity  to  protect  British  persons  or  property. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  21.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  19,  1861. 

Sir:  On  the  15th  day  of  June  instant,  Lord  Lyons,  the  British  minister, 
and  Mr.  Mercier,  the  French  minister,  residing  here,  had  an  appointed  inter¬ 
view  with  me.  Each  of  those  representatives  proposed  to  read  to  me  an 
instruction  which  he  had  received  from  his  government,  and  to  deliver  me  a 
copy  if  I  should  desire  it.  I  answered,  that  in  the  present  state  of  the  cor¬ 
respondence  between  their  respective  governments  and  that  of  the  United 
States,  I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  know  the  characters  and  effects  of  the  in¬ 
structions,  respectively,  before  I  could  consent  that  they  should  be  officially 
communicated  to  this  department.  The  ministers  therefore,  confidentially, 
and  very  frankly,  submitted  the  papers  to  me  for  preliminary  inspection. 
After  having  examined  them  so  far  as  to  understand  their  purport,  I  declined 
to  hear  them  read,  or  to  receive  official  notice  of  them. 

I  proceed  now  to  give  you  our  reasons  for  this  course,  that  you  may,  if 
you  find  it  necessary  or  expedient,  communicate  them  to  the  government  of 
Great  Britain. 

When  we  received  official  information  that  an  understanding  was  existing 
between  the  British  and  French  governments  that  they  would  take  one  and 
the  same  course  concerning  the  insurrection  which  has  occurred  in  this 
country,  involving  the  question  of  recognizing  the  independence  of  a  revo¬ 
lutionary  organization,  we  instructed  you  to  inform  the  British  government 
that  we  had  expected  from  both  of  those  powers  a  different  course  of  pro¬ 
ceeding.  We  added,  however,  that  insomuch  as  the  proposed  concert  of 
action  between  them  did  not  necessarily  imply  any  unfriendliness  of  pur¬ 
pose  or  of  disposition,  we  should  not  complain  of  it,  but  that  we  should 
insist  in  this  case,  as  in  all  others,  on  dealing  with  each  of  those  powers 
alone,  and  that  their  agreement  to  act  together  would  not  at  all  affect  the 
course  which  we  should  pursue.  Adhering  to  this  decision,  we  have  not 
made  the  concert  of  the  two  powers  a  ground  of  objection  to  the  reading  of 
the  instruction  with  which  Lord  Lyons  was  charged. 

That  paper  purports  to  contain  a  decision  at  which  the  British  government 
has  arrived,  to  the  effect  that  this  country  is  divided  into  two  belligerent 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


91 


parties,  of  which  this  government  represents  one,  and  that  Great  Britain 
assumes  the  attitude  of  a  neutral  between  them. 

Tin's  government  could  not,  consistently  with  a  just  regard  for  the  sover¬ 
eignty  of  the  United  States,  permit  itself  to  debate  these  novel  and  extraor¬ 
dinary  positions  with  the  government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty;  much  less 
can  we  consent  that  that  government  shall  announce  to  us  a  decision  de¬ 
rogating  from  that  sovereignty,  at  which  it  has  arrived  without  previously 
conferring  with  us  upon  the  question.  The  United  States  are  still  solely 
and  exclusively  sovereign  within  the  territories  they  have  lawfully  acquired 
and  long  possessed,  as  they  have  always  been.  They  are  at  peace  with  all 
the  world,  as,  with  unimportant  exceptions,  they  have  always  been.  They 
are  living  under  the  obligations  of  the  law  of  nations,  and  of  treaties  with 
Great  Britain,  just  the  same  now  as  heretofore;  they  are,  of  course,  the 
friend  of  Great  Britain,  and  they  insist  that  Great  Britain  shall  remain  their 
friend  now  just  as  she  has  hitherto  been.  Great  Britain,  by  virtue  of  these 
relations,  is  a  stranger  to  parties  and  sections  in  this  country,  whether  they 
are  loyal  to  the  United  States  or  not,  and  Great  Britain  can  neither  rightfully 
qualify  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States,  nor  concede,  nor  recognize  any 
rights,  or  interests,  or  power  of  any  party,  State,  or  section,  in  contravention 
to  the  unbroken  sovereignty  of  the  federal  Union.  What  is  now  seen  in 
this  country  is  the  occurrence,  by  no  means  peculiar,  but  frequent  in  all 
countries,  more  frequent  even  in  Great  Britain  than  here,  of  an  armed  insur¬ 
rection  engaged  in  attempting  to  overthrow  the  regularly  constituted  and 
established  government.  There  is,  of  course,  the  employment  of  force  by 
the  government  to  suppress  the  insurrection,  as  every  other  government 
necessarily  employs  force  in  such  cases.  But  these  incidents  by  no  means 
constitute  a  state  of  war  impairing  the  sovereignty  of  the  government, 
creating  belligerent  sections,  and  entitling  foreign  States  to  intervene  or  to 
act  as  neutrals  between  them,  or  in  any  other  way  to  cast  off  their  lawful 
obligations  to  the  nation  thus  for  the  moment  disturbed.  Any  other  prin¬ 
ciple  than  this  would  be  to  resolve  government  everywhere  into  a  thing  of 
accident  and  caprice,  and  ultimately  all  human  society  into  a  state  of  per¬ 
petual  war. 

We  do  not  go  into  any  argument  of  fact  or  of  law  in  support  of  the  posi¬ 
tions  we  have  thus  assumed.  They  are  simply  the  suggestions  of  the  instinct 
of  self-defence,  the  primary  law  of  human  action,  not  more  the  law  of  indi¬ 
vidual  than  of  national  life. 

This  government  is  sensible  of  the  importance  of  the  step  it  takes  in  de¬ 
clining  to  receive  the  communication  in  question.  It  hopes  and  believes, 
however,  that  it  need  not  disturb  the  good  relations  which  have  hitherto 
subsisted  between  the  two  countries  which,  more  than  any  other  nations,  have 
need  to  live  together  in  harmony  and  friendship. 

We  believe  that  Great  Britain  has  acted  inadvertently,  and  under  the 
influence  of  apprehensions  of  danger  to  her  commerce,  which  either  are  exag¬ 
gerated  or  call  for  fidelity  on  her  part  toiler  habitual  relations  to  the  United 
States,  instead  of  a  hasty  attempt  to  change  those  relations. 

Certainly  this  government  has  exerted  itself  to  the  utmost  to  prevent  Great 
Britain  from  falling  into  the  error  of  supposing  that  the  United  States  could 
consent  to  any  abatement  of  their  sovereignty  in  the  present  emergency.  It 
is,  we  take  leave  to  think,  the  common  misfortune  of  the  two  countries  that 
Great  Britain  was  not  content  to  wait  before  despatching  the  instruction  in 
question,  until  you  had  been  received  by  her  Majesty’s  government,  and  had 
submitted  the  entirely  just,  friendly,  and  liberal  overtures  with  which  you 
were  charged. 

Although  the  paper  implies,  without  affirming,  that  the  insurgents  of  this 


92 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


country  possess  some  belligerent  rights,  it  does  not  name,  specify,  or  indi¬ 
cate  one  such  right.  It  confines  itself  to  stating  what  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  require  or  expect  the  United  States  to  do.  Virtually,  it  asks  us  to 
concede  to  Great  Britain  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  declaration  of  the 
congress  held  at  Paris  in  1856.  It  asks  indeed  a  little  less,  certainly  nothing 
more  or  different  from  this.  The  British  government  ask  this  of  us  to-day, 
the  15th  of  June,  in  ignorance  of  the  fact  that  we  had,  so  early  as  the  25tli 
of  April,  instructed  you  to  tender,  without  reservation,  to  Great  Britain  our 
accession,  pure  and  simple,  to  that  declaration.  We  have  all  the  while,  since 
that  instruction  was  sent  forth,  been  ready,  as  we  now  are  ready,  to  accede 
to  the  declaration,  where  and  whenever  Great  Britain  may  be  ready  and 
willing  to  receive  it.  The  argument  contained  in  the  instruction  seems, 
therefore,  to  have  been  as  unnecessary  and  irrelevant  as  it  is  unacceptable. 
Lord  Lyons  thinks  that  his  instructions  do  not  authorize  him  to  enter  into 
convention  with  us  here.  You  will  inform  the  government  of  Great  Britain 
of  the  fact,  and,  if  they  prefer,  you  will  enter  into  the  convention  at  London. 

Of  course  it  is  understood  that  the  concessions  herein  made  do  not  affect 
or  impair  the  right  of  the  United  States  to  suppress  the  insurrection  as  well 
by  maritime  as  by  land  operations,  and  for  this  purpose  to  exclude  all  com¬ 
merce  from  such  of  the  ports  as  may  have  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  insur¬ 
gents,  either  by  closing  the  ports  directly  or  by  the  more  lenient  means  of  a 
blockade,  which  we  have  already  adopted. 

It  is  thus  seen  that,  in  the  present  case,  there  is  only  an  embarrassment 
resulting  from  the  similar  designs  of  the  two  governments  to  reach  one  com¬ 
mon  object  by  different  courses  without  knowledge  of  each  others  disposi¬ 
tions  in  that  respect.  There  is  nothing  more.  We  propose,  as  a  nation  at 
peace,  to  give  to  Great  Britain  as  a  friend  what  she  as  a  neutral  demands  of 
us,  a  nation  at  war.  We  rejoice  that  it  happens  so.  We  are  anxious  to 
avoid  all  causes  of  misunderstanding  with  Great  Britain;  to  draw  closer,  in¬ 
stead  of  breaking,  the  existing  bonds  of  amity  and  friendship.  There  is 
nothing  good  or  great  which  both  nations  may  not  expect  to  attain  or  effect 
if  they  may  remain  friends.  It  would  be  a  hazardous  day  for  both  the 
branches  of  the  British  race  when  they  should  determine  to  try  how  much 
harm  each  could  do  the  other. 

We  do  not  forget  that,  although  thus  happily  avoiding  misunderstanding 
on  the  present  occasion,  Great  Britain  may  in  some  way  hereafter  do  us 
wrong  or  injury  by  adhering  to  the  speculative  views  of  the  rights  and  duties 
of  the  two  governments  which  she  has  proposed  to  express.  But  we  believe 
her  to  be  sincere  in  the  good  wishes  for  our  welfare,  which  she  has  so  con¬ 
stantly  avowed,  and  wre  will  not,  therefore,  suffer  ourselves  to  anticipate  oc¬ 
casions  for  difference  which,  now  that  both  nations  fully  understand  each 
other,  may  be  averted  or  avoided. 

One  point  remains.  The  British  government  while  declining,  out  of  re¬ 
gard  to  our  natural  sensibility,  to  propose  mediation  for  the  settlement  of 
the  differences  which  now  unhappily  divide  the  American  people,  have  never¬ 
theless  expressed,  in  a  very  proper  manner,  their  willingness  to  undertake  the 
kindly  duty  of  mediation,  if  we  should  desire  it.  The  President  expects  you 
to  say  on  this  point  to  the  British  government,  that  we  appreciate  this  gen¬ 
erous  and  friendly  demonstration;  but  that  we  cannot  solicit  or  accept  media¬ 
tion  from  any,  even  the  most  friendly  quarter.  The  conditions  of  society  here, 
the  character  of  our  government,  the  exigencies  of  the  country,  forbid  that 
any  dispute  arising  among  us  should  ever  be  referred  to  foreign  arbitration. 
W  e  are  a  republican  and  American  people.  The  Constitution  of  our  govern¬ 
ment  furnishes  all  needful  means  for  the  correction  or  removal  of  any  possi¬ 
ble  political  evil.  Adhering  strictly  as  we  do  to  its  directions,  we  shall 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


93 


surmount  all  our  present  complications,  and  preserve  the  government  com¬ 
plete,  perfect,  and  sound,  for  the  benefit  of  future  generations.  But  the 
integrity  of  any  nation  is  lost,  and  its  fate  becomes  doubtful,  whenever 
strange  hands,  and  instruments  unknown  to  the  Constitution,  are  employed 
to  perform  the  proper  functions  of  the  people,  established  by  the  organic  laws 
of  the  State. 

Hopiflg  to  have  no  occasion  hereafter  to  speak  for  the  hearing  of  friendly 
nations  upon  the  topics  which  I  have  now  discussed,  I  add  a  single  remark 
by  way  of  satisfying  the  British  government  that  it  will  do  wisely  by  leaving 
us  to  manage  and  settle  this  domestic  controversy  in  our  own  way. . 

The  fountains  of  discontent  in  any  society  are  many,  and  some  lie  much 
deeper  than  others.  Thus  far  this  unhappy  controversy  has  disturbed  only 
those  which  are  nearest  the  surface.  There  are  others  which  lie  still  deeper 
that  may  yet  remain,  as  we  hope,  long  undisturbed.  If  they  should  be 
reached,  no  one  can  tell  how  or  when  they  could  be  closed.  It  was  foreign 
intervention  that  opened  and  that  alone  could  open  similar  fountains  in  the 
memorable  French  revolution. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  F.  Adams,  dc.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  June  21,  1861. 

-•A*  ^  *4 >  vl/  4*  »!/ 

'T*  'T  'Tv  'T'  'T  'T 

a.  'L  vL  U/ 

s  (  | '  ^  ^  ^ 

I  have  not  deemed  it  necessary  to  ask  a  special  interview  to  communicate 
to  Lord  John  Russell  the  sense  entertained  by  the  President  of  the  manner 
of  my  reception  here,  as  directed  in  yours  of  the  3d  of  June.  Presuming  it 
to  be  altogether  likely  that  another  despatch,  prepared  after  the  reception  of 
my  No.  2,  is  now  near  at  hand,  I  have  preferred  to  wait  and  see  if  that  may 
not  give  me  other  matter  to  submit  at  the  same  time. 

The  intelligence  received  from  the  United  States  of  the  effect  produced  by 
the  reception  of  the  Queen’s  proclamation  has  not  been  without  its  influence 
upon  opinion  here.  Whilst  people  of  all  classes  unite  in  declaring  that  such 
a  measure  was  unavoidable,  they  are  equally  earnest  in  disavowing  any 
inferences  of  want  of  good  will  which  may  have  been  drawn  from  it.  They 
affect  to  consider  our  complaints  as  very  unreasonable,  and  are  profuse  in 
their  professions  of  sympathy  with  the  government  in  its  present  struggle. 
This  is,  certainly,  a  very  great  change  from  the  tone  prevailing  when  1  first 
arrived.  It  is  partly  to  be  ascribed  to  the  accounts  of  the  progress  of  the 
war,  but  still  more  to  the  publications  in  the  London  Times  of  the  letters  of 
its  special  correspondent.  There  is  no  longer  any  floating  doubt  of  the 
capacity  of  the  government  to  sustain  itself,  or  any  belief  that  the  insur¬ 
gents  will  make  their  own  terms  of  accommodation.  The  idea  still  remains 
quite  general  that  there  will  never  be  any  actual  conflict,  and  it  is  connected 
in  many  cases  with  an  apprehension  that  the  reunion  may  be  cemented  upon 
the  basis  of  hostile  measures  against  Great  Britain.  Indeed,  such  has  been 
the  motive  hinted  at  by  more  than  one  person  of  influence  as  guiding  the 
policy  of  the  President  himself.  Whenever  such  a  suggestion  has  been 


No.  9.J 


Sir:  * 

* 


94 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


made  to  me,  I  have  been  careful  to  discountenance  it  altogether,  and  to  affirm 

that  the  struggle  was  carried  on  in  good  faith,  and  from  motives  not  subject 

to  be  affected  by  mere  considerations  of  policy,  or  by  temporary  emotions. 

More  especially  have  I  endeavored  to  disavow  any  “  arriere  pensee”  which 

has  the  effect  to  confirm  the  suspicion  of  our  sincerity,  I  regret  to  say,  by 

far  too  much  disseminated.  *  *  *  *  * 

^ 

1  am  now  earnestl}7  assured  on  all  sides  that  the  sympathy  with  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  is  general;  that  the  indignation  felt  in  America 
is  not  founded  in  reason;  that  the  British  desire  only  to  be  perfectly  neutral, 
giving  no  aid  nor  comfort  to  the  insurgents.  I  believe  that  this  sentiment 
is  now  growing  to  be  universal.  It  inspires  her  Majesty’s  ministers,  and  is 
not  without  its  effect  on  the  opposition.  Neither  party  would  be  so  bold  as 
to  declare  its  sympathy  with  a  cause  based  upon  the  extension  of  slavery, 
for  that  would  at  once  draw  upon  itself  the  indignation  of  the  great  body 
of  the  people.  But  the  development  of  a  positive  spirit  in  the  opposite 
direction  will  depend  far  more  upon  the  degree  in  which  the  arm  of  the 
government  enforces  obedience  than  upon  any  absolute  affinity  in  senti¬ 
ments.  Our  brethren  in  this  country,  after  all,  are  much  disposed  to  fall  in 
with  the  opinion  of  Voltaire,  that  “Dieu  est  toujours  sur  le  cote  des  gros 
canons.”  General  Scott  and  an  effective  blockading  squardron  will  be 
the  true  agents  to  keep  the  peace  abroad,  as  well  as  to  conquer  one  at 
home.  In  the  meanwhile  the  self-styled  commissioners  of  the  insurgents 
have  transferred  their  labors  to  Paris,  where,  I  am  told,  they  give  out  what 
they  could  not  venture  publicly  to  say  here,  that  this  government  will  recog¬ 
nize  them  as  a  State.  The  prediction  may  be  verified,  it  is  true;  but  it  is  not 
now  likely  to  happen,  under  any  other  condition  than  the  preceding  assent  of 
the  United  States. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  10.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  June  28,  1861. 

O  »A»  vL*  »l. 

oIR  l  ^  ^  ^ 

My  interview  with  his  lordship  was  intended  only  to  express  to  him  the 
views  entertained  by -the  President,  as  communicated  to  me  in  your  despatches 
No.  14  and  No.  15  of  the  reports  made  by  me  of  our  first  conference.  His 
lordship  said  that  he  had  just  received  despatches  as  late  as  the  15th,  com¬ 
municating  the  same  information,  and  that  Lord  Lyons  had  learned,  through 
another  member  of  the  diplomatic  corps,  that  no  further  expression  of  opinion 
on  the  subject  in  question  would  be  necessary.  This  led  to  the  most  frank 
and  pleasant  conversation  which  I  have  yet  had  with  his  lordship,  in  which 
we  reviewed  the  various  points  of  difficulty  that  had  arisen  in  a  manner  too 
desultory  to  admit  of  reporting,  excepting  in  the  general  result.  *  * 

•if  -if  -i»  -if  <Lf  -if  -if  -if  ^  -if 

I  added  that  I  believed  the  popular  feeling  in  the  United  States  would  sub¬ 
side  the  moment  that  all  the  later  action  on  this  side  was  known.  There 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


95 


was  but  a  single  drawback  remaining,  which  was  what  I  could  not  but 
regard  as  the  inopportune  despatch  of  the  Great  Eastern  with  the  troops  for 
Canada.  He  said  that  this  was  a  mere  precaution  against  times  of  trouble. 

>1#  >1/  >1/  >1'  '1'  vt* 

'j*  'T'  'j' 

His  lordship  then  said  something  about  difficulties  in  New  Granada,  and 
the  intelligence  that  the  insurgents  had  undertaken  to  close  several  of  their 
ports.  But  the  law  officers  here  told  him  that  this  could  not  be  done  as 
against  foreign  nations,  excepting  by  the  regular  form  of  blockade.  He  did 
not  know  what  we  thought  about  it,  but  he  had  observed  that  some  such 
plan  was  said  to  be  likely  to  be  adopted,  at  the  coming  meeting  of  Congress, 
in  regard  to  the  ports  of  those  whom  we  considered  as  insurgents.  I  replied 
that  such  was  one  of  the  several  projects  reported  at  the  last  session  of 
Congress,  to  which  I  was  a  member,  but  I  had  heard  some  serious  constitu¬ 
tional  objections  raised  against  it.  My  own  opinion  was  that  the  blockade 
would  be  persevered  in,  which  would  obviate  all  difficulty. 

On  the  whole,  I  think  I  can  say  that  the  relations  of  the  two  countries  are 
gradually  returning  to  a  more  friendly  condition.  My  own  reception  has 
been  all  that  I  could  desire.  I  attach  value  to  this,  howrever,  only  as  it 
indicates  the  establishment  of  a  policy  that  will  keep  us  at  peace  during  the 
continuance  of  the  present  convulsion. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  32.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  1,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  8  (dated  June  14)  has  been  received. 

My  despatch,  No.  21,  of  19th  ultimo,  has  anticipated  the  matter  you  have 
discussed  in  the  paper  before  me.  It  remains  only  to  say  that  while  we 
would  prefer  to  add  Mr.  Marcy’s  amendment,  exempting  private  property  of 
non-belligerents  from  confiscation  in  maritime  war,  and  desire  you  to  stipu¬ 
late  to  that  effect  if  you  can,  yet  we  are,  nevertheless,  ready  and  willing  to 
accede  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  if  the  amendment  cannot 
be  obtained.  In  other  words,  we  stand  on  the  instructions  contained  in  my 
aforesaid  despatch. 

We,  as  you  are  well  aware,  have  every  desire  for  a  good  understanding 
with  the  British  government.  It  causes  us  no  concern  that  the  govern¬ 
ment  sends  a  naval  force  into  the  Gulf  and  a  military  force  into  Canada. 
W  e  can  have  no  designs  hostile  to  Great  Britain  so  long  as  she  does  not, 
officially  or  unofficially,  recognize  the  insurgents  or  render  them  aid  or 
sympathy.  We  regard  the  measures  of  precaution  on  her  part,  to  which  I 
have  alluded,  as  consequences  of  the  misunderstanding  of  our  rights  and 
her  own  real  relation  towards  us  that  she  seemed  precipitately  to  adopt, 
before  she  heard  the  communication  with  which  you  were  charged  on  our 
behalf.  These  consequences  may  be  inconvenient  to  herself,  but  are  not  all 
occasion  of  irritation  to  the  United  States.  Under  present  circumstances, 
the  more  effectually  Great  Britain  guards  her  possessions  and  her  commerce 
in  this  quarter  the  better  we  shall  be  satisfied.  If  she  should  change  her 
course  and  do  u®  any  injury,  which  we  have  not  the  least  idea  now  tlnP  ;  he 


96 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


purposes  to  do,  we  should  not  be  deterred  from  vindicating’  our  rights  and 
our  unbroken  sovereignty  against  all  the  armies  and  navies  that  she  could 
send  here 

Before  the  Queen’s  proclamation  was  issued,  and  at  the  moment  when 
privateers  were  invited  and  a  naval  force  announced  as  being  organized  by 
the  insurrectionists,  it  was  reported  to  this  government  that  the  iron  steamer 
Peerless,  lying  at  Toronto,  had  been  sold  to  insurgents  to  be  used  as  a  priva¬ 
teer  to  prey  upon  our  commerce,  and  that  she  was,  nevertheless,  to  pass  under 
British  papers  and  the  British  flag  down  the  St.  Lawrence  to  be  delivered  over 
to  a  pirate  commander  in  the  open  sea.  It  was  said  that  the  governor  general 
declined  to  interfere.  I  asked  Lord  Lyons  to  request  the  governor  general  of 
Canada  to  look  into  the  facts,  and  prevent  the  departure  of  the  vessel  if  he 
should  find  the  report  to  be  true.  Lord  Lyons  answered  that  he  had  no  au¬ 
thority  to  do  so.  I  then  said  that  I  should  direct  our  naval  forces  to  seize 
and  detain  the  vessel  if  they  should  have  good  reason  to  believe  the  facts 
reported  to  be  true,  and  to  refer  the  parties  interested  to  this  government. 
I  did  this  at  once,  and  his  lordship  protested.  Afterwards,  as  we  under¬ 
stand,  the  governor  general  did  interfere,  and  the  Peerless  was  prevented 
from  sailing  until  the  danger  of  her  being  converted  into  a  pirate  was  pre¬ 
vented.  Here  the  matter  ended.  Certainly  the  British  government  could 
not  expect  us  to  permit  the  St.  Lawrence  to  become  a  harbor  for  buccaneers. 
Had  the  vessel  been  seized  or  detained  we  should  at  once  have  avowed  the 
act  and  tendered  any  satisfaction  to  the  British  government  if  it  should 
appear  that  the  character  of  the  vessel  had  been  misunderstood. 

Mr  Ashmun  went  to  Canada  to  watch  and  prevent  just  such  transactions 
as  the  sale  or  fitting  out  of  the  Peerless  for  a  pirate  would  have  been.  It 
was  not  supposed  that  his  visit  there  would  be  thought  objectionable,  or 
could  give  any  uneasiness  to  the  British  government.  Lord  Lyons  here 
viewed  the  subject  in  a  different  light  and  complained  of  it.  I  instantly 
recalled  Mr.  Ashmun. 

These  are  the  two  grievances  presented  to  you  by  Lord  John  Russell.  I 
trust  that  the  British  government  will  be  satisfied  that  in  both  cases  we 
were  only  taking  care  that  the  peace  of  the  two  countries  should  not  be 
disturbed  through  the  unlawful  action  of  covetous  and  ill-disposed  persons 
on  the  border  which  separates  them. 

I  conclude  with  the  remark  that  the  British  government  can  never  expect 
to  induce  the  United  States  to  acquiesce  in  her  assumed  position  of  this 
government  as  divided  in  any  degree  into  two  powers  for  war  more  than 
for  peace.  At  the  same  time,  if  her  Majesty’s  government  shall  continue  to 
practice  absolute  forbearance  from  any  interference  in  our  domestic  affairs, 
we  shall  not  be  captious  enough  to  inquire  what  name  it  gives  to  that  for¬ 
bearance,  or  in  what  character  it  presents  itself  before  the  British  nation  in 
doing  so.  We  hold  ourselves  entitled  to  regard  the  forbearance  as  an  act 
of  a  friendly  power,  acting  unconsciously  of  a  domestic  disturbance  among 
us,  of  which  friendly  States  can  take  no  cognizance.  On  this  point  our 
views  are  not  likely  to  undergo  any  change.  In  maintaining  this  position 
we  are  sure  we  do  nothing  derogating  from  the  dignity  of  the  British  gov¬ 
ernment,  while  we  inflexibly  maintain  and  preserve  the  just  rights  and  the 
honor  of  the  United  States. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


97 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  14.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  July  12,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatches,  from  No.  2  to  No.  25,  inclusive,  were  received  at 
this  office  early  in  the  present  week. 

1  have  read  the  first  of  these  papers,  containing  further  instructions  to 
me,  and  dated  on  the  21st  of  June,  with  close  attention.  My  prevailing 
feeling  has  been  one  of  profound  surprise  at  the  course  of  this  government 
throughout  the  present  difficulty.  First.  It  prepares,  in  the  form  of  an  in¬ 
struction  to  Lord  Lyons,  a  paper  to  be  presented  to  you,  among  other  things 
“  virtually  asking  you  to  concede  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  declaration 
of  the  congress  held  in  Paris  in  1856.”  Secondly.  When  in  obedience  to  my 
instructions  I  propose  to  offer  a  project  to  Lord  John  Russell,  actually  de¬ 
signed  to  do  the  very  thing  desired,  I  am  told  the  directions  have  already 
been  sent  out  to  Lord  Lyons  to  arrange  the  matter  on  the  basis  proposed  by 
the  American  government  of  the  three  articles,  omitting  the  fourth  altogether. 
Thirdly.  Lord  Lyons  expresses  the  opinion  to  you  that  his  instructions  do 
not  authorize  him  to  enter  into  a  convention  with  you  in  the  United  States. 
Fourthly.  When,  concurrently  with  these  events,  Mr.  Dayton  proposes  to 
negotiate  on  the  same  basis  with  France,  I  am  informed  that  this  proposal 
has  been  communicated  to  the  ministry  here,  and  that  no  definite  conclusion 
had  been  arrived  at.  I  must  say  that  a  more  remarkable  series  of  misun¬ 
derstandings  has  seldom  come  within  my  observation. 

I  now  propose  to  bring  this  matter  to  a  distinct  issue.  To  this  end  I  have 
addressed  a  letter  to  Lord  John  Russell,  to  know  whether,  under  the  renewed 
instructions  of  the  present  despatch,  he  is  disposed  to  open  the  negotiation 
here.  The  advantage  of  this  will  be  that  I  shall  get  an  answer  in  writing, 
which  will  admit  of  no  misconception.  A  copy  of  that  answer  will  be  for¬ 
warded  so  soon  as  it  is  received. 

'[>  >  V  vtx  vh*  V*/ 

/fx  /Jx  *|x  /Jx  .fx 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  17.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  July  19,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch,  No.  32,  dated  the  1st  of  July,  relating  to  the  com¬ 
munications  between  the  two  governments  respecting  the  declaration  of  the 
convention  at  Paris,  in  1856,  reached  me  soon  after  I  had  addressed  a  formal 
letter  to  Lord  John  Russell,  designed  to  bring  the  matter  to  a  definite  point. 
In  my  No.  14,  dated  on  the  12th,  I  stated  the  fact  that  I  had  sent  such  a 
letter,  and  1  promised  that  I  would  forward  his  lordship’s  answer  so  soon  as 
it  should  be  received.  I  now  transmit  copies  of  my  letter  and  of  the  answer. 

It  is  not  a  little  singular  that  his  lordship’s  memory  of  what  passed  at 
our  first  interview  on  this  subject  should  differ  so  widely  from  mine.  It 
would  seem,  by  his  account,  that  he  had  been  the  first  to  mention  the  instruc¬ 
tions  to  Lord  Lyons  to  propose  a  negotiation  on  the  subject  of  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  Paris,  and  that  I  had  thereupon  expressed  the  opinion  that  it  would 
be  well  to  leave  it  in  your  hands,  in  which  opinion  he  fully  concurred. 

7 


98 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


On  m37  side,  1  am  quite  certain  that  the  discussion  which  actually  took 
place  between  us  involved  a  wholly  different  class  of  topics  of  a  very 
critical  nature,  and  never  touched  upon  the  declaration  of  Paris,  until  it  had 
exhausted  itself  on  the  others.  It  was  by  that  time  late,  and  I  then  opened 
the  new  subject  by  remarking  that  there  would  be  no  time  to  do  more  than 
to  allude  to  it  at  this  conference.  I  first  mentioned  the  fact  that  I  had 
instructions  to  propose  a  negotiation  upon  the  disputed  point  of  the  Paris 
declarations,  and  the  necessary  powers  to  perfect  an  agreement,  if  her 
Majesty’s  government  were  disposed  to  enter  into  it.  It  was  this  proposal 
that  elicited  the  explanations  of  his  lordship  as  to  what  had  been  already 
done,  and  the  expression  of  an  opinion  that  the  instructions  sent  to  Lord 
Lyons  were  of  such  a  kind  as  to  make  some  agreement  on  your  side  so  very 
likelv  as  to  render  any  treatment  of  the  same  matter  here  unadvisable;  and 
it  was  then  that  I  concurred  in  his  opinion. 

As  things  now  stand,  perhaps  this  difference  of  recollection  in  the  present 
instance  may  not  be  material.  But  there  might  be  cases  in  which  it  would 
be  of  so  much  moment  that  I  think  hereafter  I  shall  prefer,  upon  essential 
points,  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  this  legation  a  little  more  in  writing  than 
I  have  heretofore  thought  necessary. 

At  the  hour  appointed  in  his  note,  I  waited  upon  his  lordship  for  the  first 
time,  at  his  official  residence  in  Downing  street.  After  comparing  our 
respective  remembrance  of  the  facts  in  dispute,  I  went  on  to  repeat  what  I 
maintained  I  had  at  first  proposed,  to  wit:  that  I  was  ready  to  negotiate  if 
her  Majesty’s  government  were  so  disposed.  To  that  end  I  had  brought  my 
powers,  and  also  the  project  of  a  convention,  copies  of  both  of  which  papers 
I  offered  to  leave  with  him.  He  remarked  that  at  this  stage  it  was  not 
necessary  to  look  at  the  powers.  The  other  one  he  took  and  examined. 
The  first  remark  which  he  made  was  that  it  was  essentially  the  declaration 
of  Paris.  He  had  never  known  until  now  that  the  government  of  the  United 
States  were  disposed  to  accede  to  it.  He  was  sure  that  I  had  never  men¬ 
tioned  it.  To  this  I  assented,  but  observed  that  the  reason  why  I  had  not 
done  so  was  that  my  government  had  directed  me  to  make  a  preliminary 
inquiry,  and  that  w^as  to  know  whether  her  Majesty’s  ministers  were  dis¬ 
posed  to  enter  into  an}7  negotiation  at  all.  It  was  because  of  my  under¬ 
standing  his  lordship  to  say  that  he  preferred  to  leave  the  matter  with  Lord 
Lyons,  that  I  had  considered  negotiation  here  to  be  declined.  I  had  also 
heard,  through  his  lordship,  of  a  proposition  since  made  by  Mr.  Dayton  on 
this  subject  to  the  French  government,  and  which  had  been  communicated 
to  him,  that  led  me  to  suppose  the  matter  might  be  taking  its  shape  at  Paris. 
His  lordship  observed  that  Mr.  Dayton’s  proposal  was  nothing  more  than  a 
repetition  of  that  made  by  Mr.  Marcy,  which  the}7  were  not  willing  to  accede 
to.  I  then  said  that  Mr.  Marcy’s  amendment  was  undoubtedly  the  first  wish 
of  my  government.  I  also  had  instructions  to  press  it,  if  there  was  the 
smallest  probability  of  success;  but  I  understood  that  this  matter  had  been 
definitively  settled.  His  lordship  signified  his  assent  to  this  remark,  and 
added  that  I  might  consider  the  proposition  as  inadmissible.  He  would 
therefore  take  the  copy  of  the  project  of  a  convention  which  I  had  offered 
him,  for  the  purpose  of  submitting  it  to  the  consideration  of  his  colleagues 
in  the  cabinet,  and  let  me  know  when  he  should  be  ready  to  meet  again. 

In  the  course  of  conversation,  I  took  the  occasion  to  remark  upon  that 
passage  of  his  lordship’s  note  to  me  which  related  to  the  manner  in  which 
•other  states  had  signified  their  adherence  to  the  declaration.  I  called  his 
attention  to  the  fact  that,  whatever  might  be  the  course  elsewhere,  the  pe¬ 
culiar  structure  of  our  government  required  some  distinct  form  of  agree¬ 
ment  or  convention  to  be  made  with  foreign  States  upon  which  the  Senate 
could  exercise  their  legitimate  authority  of  confirmation  or  rejection.  He 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


99 


seemed  at  once  to  understand  the  force  of  this  observation,  and  to  assent 
to  the  necessity.  Yet  I  foresaw  at  the  time  the  difficulty  in  which  it  would 
place  the  British  government  in  its  relations  with  the  other  parties  to  the 
convention  at  Paris.  The  reply  of  his  lordship,  this  moment  come  to  hand, 
a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  submitted,  explains  it  fully,  and  leaves  the 
matter  in  the  same  state  of  suspense  that  it  was  in  before. 

Under  these  circumstances,  and  presuming  it  to  be  the  wish  of  the  Presi¬ 
dent  that  no  time  be  lost,  I  shall  write  to  Mr.  Dayton,  at  Paris,  to  know 
whether  he  considers  himself  authorized  to  proceed  to  conclude  a  similar 
arrangement  with  the  French  government;  if  so,  I  shall  try  to  go  on  with¬ 
out  waiting  for  further  instructions;  if  not,  I  shall  hold  myself  ready  to  act 
here  so  soon  as  this  difficulty  shall  have  been  removed  elsewhere. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D  C. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Lord  John  Russell. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  July  11,  1861. 

My  Lord:  From  the  tenor  of  the  last  despatches  received  from  the  De¬ 
partment  of  State  at  Washington,  I  am  led  to  suppose  that  there  has  been 
some  misunderstanding  in  regard  to  the  intentions  of  her  Majesty’s  govern¬ 
ment  respecting  a  proposal  to  negotiate  upon  the  basis  of  the  declaration  of 
the  congress  held  at  Paris  in  1856.  In  the  first  conversation  which  I  had 
the  honor  to  hold  with  your  lordship,  so  long  ago  as  the  18th  of  May  last, 
in  answer  to  an  offer  then  made  by  myself,  under  instructions  from  my  gov¬ 
ernment,  I  certainly  understood  your  lordship  to  say  that  the  subject  had 
already  been  committed  to  the  care  of  Lord  Lyons,  at  Washington,  with  au¬ 
thority  to  accept  the  proposition  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
adopting  three  articles  of  the  declaration  at  Paris,  and  to  drop  the  fourth 
altogether.  For  this  reason  you  preferred  not  to  enter  into  the  question  on 
this  side  of  the  water.  I  am  now  informed  that  Lord  Lvons  thinks  his  in- 

i/ 

structions  do  not  authorize  him  to  enter  into  convention  with  the  authorities 
at  Washington,  and  am  instructed  to  apprise  her  Majesty’s  government  of 
the  fact. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  am  directed  once  more  to  renew  the  propo¬ 
sition  here,  and  to  say  that,  if  agreeable  to  your  lordship,  I  am  prepared  to 
present  to  your  consideration  a  project  of  a  convention  at  any  moment 
which  it  may  be  convenient  to  you  to  appoint. 

Seizing  the  occasion  to  renew  the  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration, 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  lordship’s  most  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

The  Right  Honorable  Lord  John  Russell, 

&C.,  dec.,  dec. 


Lord  John  Russell  to  Mr.  Adams. 

Foreign  Office,  July  13,  1861. 

Sir:  I  1  lave  just  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  dated  the  1 1  th  instant. 
In  the  first  conversation  I  had  the  honor  to  hold  with  you,  on  the  18th  of 


100 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


May,  I  informed  you  that  instructions  had  been  sent  to  Lord  Lyons  to  pro¬ 
pose  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  to  adopt  the  second,  third,  and 
fourth  articles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris,  dropping  the  first  altogether. 

You  informed  me  that  you  had  instructions  on  the  same  subject;  but  I 
understood  you  to  express  an  opinion,  in  which  I  fully  concurred,  that  it 
would  be  well  to  leave  the  question  in  the  hands  of  the  Secretary  of  State 
at  Washington. 

Lord  Lyons  had  instructions  to  make  an  agreement  with  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  but  he  had  no  express  authority  to  sign  a  convention. 

The  States  who  have  adhered  to  the  declaration  of  Paris  have  generally, 
if  not  invariably,  done  so  by  despatches  or  notes,  and  not  by  conventions. 

As,  however,  you  have  been  instructed  to  present  to  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment,  for  consideration,  a  project  of  a  convention,  I  shall  be  happy  to 
see  you  at  the  foreign  office  at  three  o’clock  to-day,  for  the  purpose  of 
receiving  that  project. 

I  request  you  to  receive  the  assurance  of  my  highest  consideration,  and 
have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

J.  RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dc.,  dc.,  dc. 


Lord  John  Russell  to  Mr.  Adams. 

Foreign  Office,  July  18,  1861. 

Sir:  Upon  considering  your  propositions  of  Saturday  last  I  have  two 
remarks  to  make. 

First.  The  course  hitherto  followed  has  been  a  simple  notification  of 
adherence  to  the  declaration  of  Paris  by  those  states  which  were  not 
originally  parties  to  it. 

Secondly.  The  declaration  of  Paris  was  one  embracing  various  powers, 
with  a  view  to  general  concurrence  upon  questions  of  maritime  law,  and  not 
an  insulated  engagement  between  two  powers  only. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  are  willing  to  waive  entirely  any  objection  on 
the  first  of  these  heads,  and  to  accept  the  form  which  the  government  of  the 
United  States  prefers. 

With  regard  to  the  second,  her  Majesty’s  government  are  of  opinion  that 
they  should  be  assured  that  the  United  States  are  ready  to  enter  into  a 
similar  engagement  with  France,  and  with  other  maritime  powers  who  are 
parties  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  and  do  not  purpose  to  make  singly  and 
separately  a  convention  with  Great  Britain  only. 

But  as  much  time  might  be  required  for  separate  communications  between 
the  government  of  the  United  States  and  all  the  maritime  powers  who  were 
parties  to  or  have  acceded  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  her  Majesty’s  govern¬ 
ment  would  deem  themselves  authorized  to  advise  the  Queen  to  conclude  a 
convention  on  this  subject  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  so  soon 
as  they  shall  have  been  informed  that  a  similar  convention  has  been  agreed 
upon,  and  is  ready  for  signature,  between  the  President  of  the  United  States 
and  the  Emperor  of  the  French,  so  that  the  two  conventions  might  be  signed 
simultaneously  and  on  the  same  day. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

J.  RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dc.,  dc.,  dc. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


101 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  42.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  June  28,  No.  10,  has  been  received. 

I  have  already,  in  a  previous  communication,  informed  you  that  this  gov¬ 
ernment  has  not  been  disturbed  b3'  the  action  of  the  British  authorities  in 
sending  three  regiments  into  Canada,  nor  by  the  announcement  of  the  coming 
of  British  armed  vessels  into  American  waters.  These  movements  are  cer¬ 
tainly  not  very  formidable  in  their  proportions;  and  we  willingly  accept  the 
explanation  that  they  proceed  from  merely  prudential  motives. 

Doubtless  it  had  been  better  if  they  had  not  been  made.  But  what  gov¬ 
ernment  can  say  that  it  never  acts  precipitately,  or  even  capriciously.  On 
our  part  the  possibility  of  foreign  intervention,  sooner  or  later,  in  this 
domestic  disturbance  is  never  absent  from  the  thoughts  of  this  government. 
We  are,  therefore,  not  likely  to  exaggerate  indications  of  an  emergency  for 
which  we  hold  ourselves  bound  to  be  in  a  measure  always  prepared. 

Another  subject  which,  according  to  your  report,  was  discussed  in  your 
late  interview  with  Lord  John  Russell  demands  more  extended  remarks.  I 
refer  to  the  portion  of  your  despatch  which  is  in  these  words:  His  lordship 
then  said  something  about  difficulties  in  New  Grenada,  and  the  intelligence 
that  the  insurgents  there  had  passed  a  law  to  close  their  ports.  But  the  law 
officers  here  told  him  that  this  could  not  be  done  as  against  foreign  nations, 
except  by  the  regular  form  of  a  blockade.  He  did  not  know  what  we  thought 
about  it;  but  he  had  observed  that  some  such  plan  was  said  to  be  likely  to  be 
adopted  at  the  coming  meeting  of  Congress  in  regard  to  the  ports  of  those 
whom  we  considered  as  insurgents.” 

Much  as  I  deprecate  a  reference  in  official  communications  of  this  kind  to 
explanations  made  by  ministers  in  Parliament,  not  always  fully  or  accurately 
reported,  and  always  liable  to  be  perverted  when  applied  to  cases  not  con¬ 
sidered  when  the  explanations  are  given,  I  nevertheless  find  it  necessary,  by 
way  of  elucidating  the  subject,  to  bring  into  this  connexion  the  substance  of 
a  debate  which  is  said  to  have  taken  place  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  the 
27th  of  June  last,  and  which  is  as  follows: 

Mr.  H.  Berkly  asked  the  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs  whether  her 
Majesty’s  government  recognized  a  notification  given  by  Senor  Martin,  min¬ 
ister  plenipotentiary  to  this  court  from  the  Grenadian  confederation,  better 
known  as  the  Republic  of  New  Grenada,  which  announces  a  blockade  of  the 
ports  of  Rio  Hacha,  Santa  Marta,  Savanilla,  Carthagena,  and  Zaporte,  and 
which  government  did  her  Majesty’s  government  recognize  in  the  so-called 
Grenadian  confederation. 

Lord  John  Russell  said  the  question  is  one  of  considerable  importance. 
The  government  of  New  Grenada  has  announced,  not  a  blockade,  but  that 
certain  ports  of  New  Grenada  are  to  be  closed.  The  opinion  of  her  Majesty’s 
government,  after  taking  legal  advice,  is,  that  it  is  perfectly  competent  for 
the  government  of  a  country  in  a  state  of  tranquillity  to  say  which  ports 
shall  be  open  to  trade  and  which  shall  be  closed;  but  in  the  event  of  insur¬ 
rection  or  civil  war  in  that  country,  it  is  not  competent  for  its  government 
to  close  the  ports  that  are  de  facto  in  the  hands  of  the  insurgents,  as  that 
would  be  an  invasion  of  international  law  with  regard  to  blockade.  Admiral 
Milne,  acting  on  instructions  from  her  Majesty’s  government,  has  ordered 
the  commanders  of  her  Majesty’s  ships  not  to  recognize  the  closing  of  their 
ports. 

Since  your  conversation  with  Lord  John  Russell,  and  also  since  the  debate 
which  I  have  extracted  occurred,  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  has  by 


102 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


law  asserted  the  right  of  this  government  to  close  the  ports  in  this  country 
which  have  been  seized  by  the  insurgents. 

I  send  you  herewith  a  copy  of  the  enactment.  The  connecting  by  Lord 
John  Russell  of  that  measure  when  it  was  in  prospect  with  what  had  taken 
place  in  regard  to  a  law  of  New  Granada,  gives  to  the  remarks  which  he 
made  to  you  a  significance  that  requires  no  especial  illustration.  If  the 
government  of  the  United  States  should  close  their  insurrectionary  ports 
under  the  new  statute,  and  Great  Britain  should,  in  pursuance  of  the  intima¬ 
tion  made,  disregard  the  act,  no  one  can  suppose  for  a  moment  that  the 
United  States  would  acquiesce.  When  a  conflict  on  such  a  question  shall 
arrive  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  it  is  not  easily  to  be 
seen  what  maritime  nation  could  keep  aloof  from  it.  It  must  be  confessed, 
therefore,  that  a  new  incident  has  occurred  increasing  the  danger  that  what 
has  hitherto  been,  and,  as  we  think,  ought  to  be,  a  merely  domestic  contro¬ 
versy  of  our  own,  may  be  enlarged  into  a  general  war  among  the  great 
maritime  nations.  Hence  the  necessity  for  endeavoring  to  bring  about  a 
more  perfect  understanding  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain 
for  the  regulation  of  their  mutual  relations  than  has  yet  been  attained. 

In  attempting  that  important  object  I  may  be  allowed  to  begin  by  affirm¬ 
ing  that  the  President  deprecates,  as  much  as  any  citizen  of  either  country 
or  any  friend  of  humanity  throughout  the  world  can  deprecate,  the  evil  of 
foreign  wars,  to  be  superinduced,  as  he  thinks  unnecessarily,  upon  the 
painful  civil  conflict  in  which  we  are  engaged  for  the  purpose  of  defending 
and  maintaining  our  national  authority  over  our  own  disloyal  citizens. 

I  may  add,  also,  for  myself,  that  however  otherwise  I  may  at  any  time 
have  been  understood,  it  has  been  an  earnest  and  profound  solicitude  to 
avert  foreign  war;  that  alone  has  prompted  the  emphatic  and  sometimes, 
perhaps,  impassioned  remonstrances  I  have  hitherto  made  against  any  form 
or  measure  of  recognition  of  the  insurgents  by  the  government  of  Great 
Britain.  I  write  in  the  same  spirit  now;  and  I  invoke  on  the  part  of  the 
British  government,  as  I  propose  to  exercise  on  my  own,  the  calmness  which 
all  counsellors  ought  to  practise  in  debates  which  involve  the  peace  and 
happiness  of  mankind. 

The  United  States  and  Great  Britain  have  assumed  incompatible,  and 
thus  far  irreconcilable,  positions  on  the  subject  of  the  existing  insurrection. 

The  United  States  claim  and  insist  that  the  integrity  of  the  republic  is 
unbroken,  and  that  their  government  is  supreme  so  far  as  foreign  nations 
are  concerned,  as  well  for  war  as  for  peace,  over  all  the  States,  all  sections, 
and  all  citizens,  the  loyal  not  more  than  the  disloyal,  the  patriots  and  the 
insurgents  alike.  Consequently  they  insist  that  the  British  government 
shall  in  no  way  intervene  in  the  insurrection,  or  hold  commercial  cr  other 
intercourse  with  the  insurgents  in  derogation  of  the  federal  authority. 

The  British  government,  without  having  first  deliberately  heard  the  claims 
of  the  United  States,  announced,  through  a  proclamation  of  the  Queen,  that 
it  took  notice  of  the  insurrection  as  a  civil  war  so  flagrant  as  to  divide  this 
country  into  two  belligerent  parties,  of  which  the  federal  government  con¬ 
stitutes  one  and  the  disloyal  citizens  the  other;  and  consequently  it  inferred 
a  right  of  Great  Britain  to  stand  in  an  attitude  of  neutrality  between  them. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  at  this  time  to  vindicate  the  position  of  the  United 
States,  nor  is  it  my  purpose  to  attempt  to  show  to  the  government  of  Great 
Britain  that  its  position  is  indefensible. 

The  question  at  issue  concerns  the  United  States  primarily,  and  Great 
Britain  only  secondarily  and  incidentally.  It  is,  as  I  have  before  said,  a 
question  of  the  integrity,  which  is  nothing  less  than  the  life  of  the  republic 
itself. 

The  position  which  the  government  has  taken  has  been  dictated,  there- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


103 


fore,  by  the  law  of  self-preservation.  No  nation  animated  by  loyal  senti¬ 
ments  and  inspired  by  a  generous  ambition  can  even  suffer  itself  to  debate 
with  parties  within  or  without  a  policy  of  self-preservation.  In  assuming 
this  position  and  the  policy  resulting  from  it,  we  have  done,  as  I  think,  just 
what  Great  Britain  herself  must,  and  therefore  would  do  if  a  domestic  in¬ 
surrection  should  attempt  to  detach  Ireland,  or  Scotland,  or  England  from 
the  United  Kingdom,  while  she  would  hear  no  argument  nor  enter  into  any 
debate  upon  the  subject.  Neither  adverse  opinions  of  theoretical  writers, 
nor  precedents  drawn  from  the  practice  of  other  nations,  or,  even  if  they 
could  be,  from  her  own,  would  modify  her  course,  which  would  be  all  the 
more  vigorously  followed  if  internal  resistance  should  fortify  itself  with 
alliances  throughout  the  world.  This  is  exactly  the  case  now  with  the 


United  States. 

So,  for  obvious  reasons,  I  refrain  from  argument  to  prove  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  Great  Britain  the  assumed  error  of  the  position  it  has  avowed. 

First.  Argument  from  a  party  that  maintains  itself  to  be  absolutely  right, 
and  resolved  in  no  case  to  change  its  convictions,  becomes  merely  contro¬ 
versial.  Secondly.  Such  argument  would  be  only  an  indirect  way  of  de¬ 
fending  our  own  position,  which  is  unchangeable.  Thirdly.  The  position  of 
Great  Britain  has  been  taken  upon  the  assumption  of  a  certain  degree  of 
probability  of  success  by  the  insurgents  in  arms;  and  it  must  be  sooner  or 
later  abandoned,  as  that  probability  shall  diminish  and  ultimately  cease, 
while  in  any  case  that  circumstance  does  not  affect  our  position  or  the 
policy  which  we  have  adopted.  It  must,  therefore,  be  left  to  Great  Britain 
to  do  what  we  have  done,  namely,  survey  the  entire  field,  with  the  conse¬ 
quences  of  her  course  deemed  by  us  to  be  erroneous,  and  determine  as  those 
consequences  develope  themselves  how  long  that  course  shall  be  pursued. 

While,  however,  thus  waiving  controversy  on  the  main  point,  I  am 
tempted  by  a  sincere  conviction  that  Great  Britain  really  must  desire,  as  we 
do,  that  the  peace  of  the  world  may  not  be  unnecessarily  broken,  to  consider 
the  attitude  of  the  two  powers,  with  a  view  to  mutual  forbearance,  until 
reconciliation  of  conflicting  systems  shall  have  become  in  every  event  im¬ 
possible. 

The  British  government  will,  I  think,  admit  that  so  soon  as  its  unex¬ 
pected,  and,  as  we  regard  it,  injurious  position  assumed  in  the  Queen’s 
proclamation  became  known  to  us,  we  took  some  pains  to  avert  premature 
or  unnecessary  collision,  if  it  could  be  done  without  sacrificing  any  part  of 
the  sovereignty  which  we  had  determined  in  every  event  to  defend.  We 
promptly  renewed  the  proposition  which,  fortunately  for  both  parties,  we 
had  tendered  before  that  proclamation  was  issued,  to  concede  as  one  whole 
undivided  sovereignty  to  Great  Britain,  as  a  friend,  aU  the  guarantees  for 
her  commerce  that  she  might  claim  as  a  neutral  from  this  government  as 
one  of  her  two  imagined  belligerents.  It  seemed  to  us  that  these  two  great 
and  kindred  nations  might  decline  to  be  dogmatic,  and  act  practically  with 
a  view  to  immediate  peace  and  ultimate  good  understanding. 

So,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  my  duty  to  admit,  as  I  most  frankly  do,  that 
the  directions  given  by  the  British  government  that  our  blockade  shall  be 
respected,  and  that  favor  or  shelter  shall  be  denied  to  insurgent  privateers, 
together  with  the  disallowance  of  the  application  of  the  insurgent  commis¬ 
sioners,  have  given  us  good  reason  to  expect  that  our  complete  sovereignty, 
though  theoretically  questioned  in  the  Queen’s  proclamation,  would  be  prac¬ 
tically  respected.  Lord  Lyons,  as  you  are  aware,  proposed  to  read  to  me  a 
despatch  which  he  had  received  from  his  government,  affirming  the  position 
assumed  in  the  Queen’s  proclamation,  and  deducing  from  that  position 
claims  as  a  neutral  to  guarantees  of  safety  to  British  commerce  less  than 
those  we  had,  as  I  have  already  stated,  offered  to  her  as  a  friend.  1  de- 


104 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


dined,  as  you  have  been  advised,  to  hear  the  communication,  but  neverthe¬ 
less  renewed  through  you,  as  I  consistently  could,  the  offer  of  the  greater 
guarantees  before  tendered. 

The  case  then  seemed  to  me  to  stand  thus:  The  two  nations  had,  indeed, 
failed  to  find  a  common  ground  or  principle  on  which  they  could  stand  to¬ 
gether;  but  they  had  succeeded  in  reaching  a  perfect  understanding  of  the 
nature  and  extent  of  their  disagreement,  and  in  finding  a  line  of  mutual, 
practical  forbearance.  It  was  under  this  aspect  of  the  positions  of  the  two 
governments  that  the  President  thought  himself  authorized  to  inform  Con¬ 
gress  on  its  coming  together  on  the  4th  of  July  instant,  in  extra  session 
that  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States  was  practically  respected  by  all 
nations. 

Nothing  has  occurred  to  change  this  condition  of  affairs,  unless  it  be  the 
attitude  which  Lord  John  Russell  has  indicated  for  the  British  government 
in  regard  to  an  apprehended  closing  of  the  insurrectionary  ports,  and  the 
passage  of  the  law  of  Congress  which  authorizes  that  measure  in  the  dis¬ 
cretion  of  the  President. 

It  is  my  purpose  not  to  anticipate  or  even  indicate  the  decision  which 
will  be  made,  but  simply  to  suggest  to  you  what  you  may  properly  and 
advantageously  say  while  the  subject  is  under  consideration.  First.  You 
will,  of  course,  prevent  misconception  of  the  measure  by  stating  that  the 
law  only  authorizes  the  President  to  close  the  ports  in  his  discretion,  ac¬ 
cording  as  he  shall  regard  exigencies  now  existing  or  hereafter  to  arise. 

Secondly.  The  passage  of  the  law,  taken  in  connexion  with  attendant  cir¬ 
cumstances,  does  not  necessarily  indicate  a  legislative  conviction  that  the 
ports  ought  to  be  closed,  but  only  shows  the  purpose  of  Congress  that  the 
closing  of  the  ports,  if  it  is  now  or  shall  become  necessary,  shall  not  fail 
for  want  of  power  explicitly  conferred  by  law.  When,  on  the  13th  of  April 
last,  disloyal  citizens  defiantly  inaugurated  an  armed  insurrection  by  the 
bombardment  of  Fort  Sumter,  the  President’s  constitutional  obligation  to 
suppress  the  insurrection  became  imperative. 

But  the  case  was  new,  and  had  not  been  adequately  provided  for  by  ex¬ 
press  law.  The  President  called  military  and  naval  forces  into  activity, 
instituted  a  blockade,  and  incurred  great  expense,  for  all  which  no  direct 
legal  provisions  existed.  lie  convened  Congress  at  the  earliest  possible 
day  to  confirm  these  measures,  if  they  should  see  fit. 

Congress,  when  it  came  together,  confronted  these  facts.  It  has  employed 
itself  less  in  directing  how  and  in  what  way  the  Union  shall  be  maintained, 
than  in  confirming  what  the  President  had  alread}^  done,  and  in  putting  into 
his  hands  more  ample  means  and  greater  power  than  he  has  exercised  or 
asked. 

The  law  in  question  was  passed  in  this  generous  and  patriotic  spirit. 
Whether  it  shall  be  put  into  execution  to-day  or  to-morrow,  or  at  what  time, 
will  depend  on  the  condition  of  things  at  home  and  abroad,  and  a  careful 
weighing  of  the  advantages  of  so  stringent  a  measure  against  those  which 
are  derived  from  the  existing  blockade. 

Thirdly.  You  may  assure  the  British  government  that  no  change  of  policy 
now  pursued,  injuriously  affecting  foreign  commerce,  will  be  made  from 
motives  of  aggression  against  nations  which  practically  respect  the 
sovereignty  of  the  United  States,  or  without  due  consideration  of  all  the 
circumstances,  foreign  as  well  as  domestic,  bearing  upon  the  question.  The 
same  spirit  of  forbearance  towards  foreign  nations,  arising  from  a  desire  to 
confine  the  calamities  of  the  unhappy  contest  as  much  as  possible,  and  to 
bring  it  to  a  close  by  the  complete  restoration  of  the  authority  of  the  gov 


CORRESPONDENCE.  105 

ernment  as  speedily  as  possible,  that  have  hitherto  regulated  the  action  of 
the  government  will  continue  to  control  its  counsels. 

On  the  other  hand,  you  will  not  leave  it  at  all  doubtful  that  the  President 
fully  adheres  to  the  position  that  this  government  so  early  adopted,  and  which 
I  have  so  continually  throughout  this  controversy  maintained;  consequently 
he  fully  agrees  with  Congress  in  the  principle  of  the  law  which  authorizes 
him  to  close  the  ports  which  have  been  seized  by  the  insurgents,  and  he  will 
put  into  execution  and  maintain  it  with  all  the  means  at  his  command,  at  the 
hazard  of  whatever  consequences,  whenever  it  shall  appear  that  the  safety 
of  the  nation  requires  it. 

I  cannot  leave  the  subject  without  endeavoring  once  more,  as  I  have  so 
often  done  before,  to  induce  the  British  government  to  realize  the  conviction 
which  I  have  more  than  once  expressed  in  this  correspondence,  that  the 
policy  of  the  government  is  one  that  is  based  on  interests  of  the  greatest 
importance,  and  sentiments  of  the  highest  virtue,  and  therefore  is  in  no  case 
likely  to  be  changed,  whatever  ma}r  be  the  varying  fortunes  of  the  war  at 
home  or  the  action  of  foreign  nations  on  this  subject,  while  the  policy  of 
foreign  States  rests  on  ephemeral  interests  of  commerce  or  of  ambition 
merely.  The  policy  of  these  United  States  is  not  a  creature  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  but  an  inspiration  of  the  people,  while  the  policies  of  foreign  States 
are  at  the  choice  mainly  of  the  governments  presiding  over  them.  If, 
through  error,  on  whatever  side  this  civil  contention  shall  transcend  the 
national  bounds  and  involve  foreign  States,  the  energies  of  all  commercial 
nations,  including  our  own,  will  necessarily  be  turned  to  war,  and  a  general 
carnival  of  the  adventurous  and  the  reckless  of  all  countries,  at  the  cost  of 
the  existing  commerce  of  the  world,  must  ensue.  Beyond  that  painful  scene 
upon  the  seas  there  lie,  but  dimly  concealed  from  our  vision,  scenes  of 
devastation  and  desolation  which  will  leave  no  roots  remaining  out  of 
which  trade  between  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  as  it  has  hitherto 
flourished,  can  ever  again  spring  up. 

1  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  20.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  July  26,  1861. 

Sir:  At  the  close  of  my  despatch,  No.  IT,  on  the  subject  of  my  last 
conference  with  Lord  John  Russell,  I  mentioned  my  intention  to  write  to  Mr. 
Dayton,  at  Paris,  to  know  whether  he  felt  authorized  to  proceed  in  a  simul¬ 
taneous  negotiation  on  the  subject  of  the  declaration  of  the  congress  at 
Paris.  I  have  now  to  report  that  I  executed  my  purpose  on  the  19th  instant. 

On  the  evening  cf  the  24th  I  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Dayton  announcing 
his  arrival  in  town  and  his  wish  to  confer  with  me  upon  this  matter. 

Yesterday  morning  1  had  the  pleasure  of  a  full  and  free  conversation  with 
him,  in  the  course  of  which  we  carefully  compared  our  respective  instructions 
and  the  action  taken  under  them. 

I  am  very  glad  he  has  taken  the  trouble  to  come  over  to  see  me,  for  I 
confess  that  I  was  a  little  embarrassed  by  not  knowing  the  precise  nature 
of  his  proposal  to  the  French  government  at  the  time  when  I  heard  of  it 
from  Lord  John  Russell.  Had  1  been  informed  of  it  I  should  perhaps  have 
shaped  my  own  course  a  little  differently.  So  I  doubt  not  that  he  would 


106 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


have  been  pleased  to  know  more  exactly  my  own  proceeding’s  as  weil  as  the 
more  specific  character  of  my  instructions.  An  hour’s  interview  has  had  the 
effect  to  correct  our  impressions  better  than  could  have  been  accomplished 
by  an  elaborate  correspondence. 

1  can  now  perfectly  understand  as  well  as  enter  into  the  reasons  which 
prompted  his  proposal  of  the  declaration  of  Paris,  connected  as  it  was  with 
the  modification  first  suggested  by  Mr.  Marcy.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that 
the  attempt  to  secure  such  an  extension  of  the  application  of  the  principle 
contained  in  the  first  point  of  that  declaration  was  worth  making,  on  the 
part  of  the  new  administration,  particularly  at  a  place  where  there  was  no 
reason  to  presume  any  disinclination  to  adopt  it.  Neither  did  the  reply  of 
Mr.  Thouvenel  entirely  preclude  the  hope  of  ultimate  success,  so  far  as  the 
disposition  of  France  may  be  presumed. 

The  obstacles,  if  any  there  are,  must  be  inferred  to  have  been  thought  to 
exist  elsewhere.  And  an  advance  could  be  expected  only  when  the  efforts 
to  remove  them  had  been  applied  with  effect  in  the  proper  quarter.  It  was, 
therefore,  both  natural  and  proper  for  Mr.  Dajdon,  after  having  made  his 
offer,  and  received  such  an  answer,  to  wait  patiently  until  it  should  become 
apparent  that  such  efforts  had  been  made,  and  made  without  success. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  opposition  to  this  modification  centres 
here.  Independently  of  the  formal  announcement  of  Lord  John  Russell  to 
me  that  the  proposition  was  declined,  I  have,  from  other  sources  of  informa¬ 
tion,  some  reason  to  believe  that  it  springs  from  the  tenacity  of  a  class  of 
influential  persons,  by  their  age  and  general  affinities,  averse  to  all  sudden 
variations  from  established  ideas.  Such  people  are  not  to  be  carried  away 
by  novel  reasoning,  however  forcible.  We  have  cause  to  feel  the  presence 
of  a  similar  power  at  home,  though  in  a  vastly  reduced  degree. 

All  modifications  of  the  public  law,  however  beneficent,  naturally  meet 
with  honest  resistance  in  these  quarters  for  a  time.  It  is  to  be  feared  that 
this  may  have  the  effect  of  defeating,  at  this  moment,  the  application  of  the 
noble  doctrines  of  the  declaration  of  Paris,  in  the  full  expansion  of  which 
they  are  susceptible.  Put  to  my  mind  the  failure  to  reach  that  extreme 
point  will  not  justify  the  United  States  in  declining  to  accept  the  good 
which  is  actually  within  their  grasp.  The  declaration  of  the  leading  powers 
of  civilized  Europe,  made  at  Paris  in  1856,  engrafted  upon  the  law  of  nations 
for  the  first  time  great  principles  for  which  the  government  of  the  United 
States  had  always  contended  against  some  of  those  powers,  and  down  to 
that  time  had  contended  in  vain. 

That  great  act  was  the  virtual  triumph  of  their  policy  all  over  the  globe. 
It  was  the  sacrifice,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  of  notions  she  had  ever 
before  held  to  with  the  most  unrelenting  rigidity.  It  would  therefore  seem 
as  if  any  reluctance  to  acknowledge  this  practical  amount  of  benefit, 
obtained  on  the  mere  ground  that  something  remained  to  require,  was  cal¬ 
culated  only  to  wither  the  laurels  gained  by  our  victory. 

It  would  almost  seem  like  a  retrograde  tendency  to  the  barbarism  of 
former  ages.  Surely  it  is  not  in  the  spirit  of  the  reformed  government  in 
America  to  give  countenance  to  any  such  impression.  Whatever  may  have 
been  the  character  of  the  policy  in  later  years,  the  advent  of  another  and  a 
better  power  should  be  marked  by  a  recurrence  to  the  best  doctrines  ever 
proclaimed  in  the  national  history.  And  if  it  so  happen  that  they  are  not 
now  adopted  by  others  to  the  exact  extent  that  we  would  prefer,  the  obvious 
course  of  wisdom  would  seem  to  be  to  accept  the  good  which  can  be  ob¬ 
tained,  and  patiently  to  await  another  opportunity  when  a  continuance  of 
exertions  in  the  same  direction  may  enable  us  to  secure  everything  that  is 
left  to  be  desired. 

I  think  that  Mr.  Dayton  has  waited  only  to  be  convinced  that  his  proposed 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


107 


modification  cannot  bo  secured  before  he  acts  upon  the  authority  given  him 
to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  pure  and  simple. 

On  my  part,  I  have  apprised  him  of  the  answer  made  to  me  by  Lord  John 
Russell  at  our  last  conference.  But  he  wishes  some  evidence  upon  which 
he  can  rely  a  little  more  securely  than  a  report  of  conversation.  And  con¬ 
sidering  the  remarkable  discrepancy  in  the  recollection  of  the  conferences 
with  his  lordship  which  has  thus  far  taken  place,  I  am  not  surprised.  In 
order  to  meet  this  difficulty  he  has  addressed  to  me  a  letter  of  inquiry, 
which  I  propose  to  answer.  At  the  same  time  I  design  to  address  a  letter 
to  his  lordship  recapitulating  the  portion  of  his  conversation  that  is  in 
question,  and  informing  him  that,  on  the  assumption  that  I  understood  him 
right,  Mr.  Dayton  consents  to  proceed.  This  will,  of  course,  render  it  neces¬ 
sary  for  him  to  explain  himself,  if  the  fact  should  be  otherwise. 

Mr.  Dayton  will,  of  comse,  communicate  directly  with  the  department  as 
to  the  later  measures  which  he  may  think  proper  to  take. 

You  will  have  been  already  informed  by  the  newspapers  of  the  changes 
which  the  ministry  has  undergone  in  consequence  of  the  necessity  imposed 
upon  Lord  Herbert  by  his  failing  health  to  retire  from  his  post.  As  a  con¬ 
sequence,  Lord  John  Russell  has  been  called  to  the  House  of  Lords,  though 
retaining  his  official  station,  and  some  shifting  of  other  places  has  occurred. 
The  only  new  appointment  is  that  of  Sir  Robert  Peel.  *  *  * 

5}c  sfc  ■%.  ifc  ■%. 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


But  I  have  not  time  at  the  close  of  this  communication  to  enter  into  any 
speculations  so  intimately  connected  with  a  general  view  of  the  state  of 
affairs  in  the  other  countries  of  Europe  as  well  as  in  the  United  States.  I 
shall  therefore  reserve  what  views  I  may  have  to  submit  on  this  subject  to 
a  future  opportunity. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

[Confidential  ] 

No  46.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  26,  1861. 

Sir:  My  despatch,  No.  42,  dated  July  21,  was  delayed  beyond  the  proper 
mail  day  by  circumstances  entirely  beyond  my  control.  I  trust,  however, 
that  it  will  still  be  in  time. 

Our  army  of  the  Potomac  on  Sunday  last  met  a  reverse  equally  severe 
and  unexpected.  For  a  day  or  two  the  panic  which  had  produced  the  result 
was  followed  by  a  panic  that  seemed  to  threaten  to  demoralize  the  country. 
But  that  evil  has  ceased  already.  The  result,  is  already  seen  in  a  vigorous 
reconstruction  upon  a  scale  of  greater  magnitude  and  increased  enthusiasm. 

It  is  not  likely  that  anything  will  now  be  done  here,  hastily  or  inconsid¬ 
erately,  affecting  our  foreign  relations. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  ^Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  (fcc.,  &c. 


108 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

[Confidential.] 

No.  49.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  29,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  July  12,  1861,  No  14,  has  been  received. 

Your  proposition  of  making  a  distinct  appeal  to  the  British  government 
on  the  subject  of  the  issue  between  it  and  this  government,  upon  the  ques¬ 
tions  so  long  discussed,  is  approved.  We  shall  look  with  much  interest  for 
the  answer  of  that  government. 

You  will  hear  of  a  reverse  of  our  arms  in  Virginia.  The  exaggerations 
of  the  result  have  been  as  great  as  the  public  impatience,  perhaps,  which 
brought  it  about.  But  the  affair  will  not  produce  any  serious  injury.  The 
strength  of  the  insurrection  is  not  broken,  but  it  is  not  formidable.  The 
vigor  of  the  government  will  be  increased,  and  the  ultimate  result  will  be 
a  triumph  of  the  Constitution.  Do  not  be  misled  by  panic  reports  of  danger 
apprehended  for  the  capital. 

Some  important  points  in  your  despatch  will  be  treated  of  in  another 
paper. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfullv,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  do.,  dc.,  dc. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  22.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  Augusts,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  the  copy  of  a  note  addressed  by  me,  on 
the  29th  of  July  last,  to  Lord  John  Russell,  and  likewise  a  copy  of  his  lord¬ 
ship's  reply.  I  must  frankly  admit  that  I  do  not  understand  the  meaning 
of  the  last  paragraph. 

I  have  transmitted  a  copy  of  his  lordship’s  note  to  Mr.  Dayton.  I  doubt 
not  that  it  will  be  deemed  by  him  so  far  satisfactory  as  to  induce  him  to 
take  the  necessary  measures  for  a  simultaneous  negotiation  as  soon  as  the 
customary  arrangements  with  the  French  government  can  be  made 
I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir.  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  July  29,  1861. 

My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  now  to  inform  your  lordship  that,  in  conso¬ 
nance  with  the  intention  expressed  in  my  note  of  the  19th  instant,  I  have 
written  to  Mr.  Dayton,  at  Paris,  touching  the  extent  of  his  powers  to  nego¬ 
tiate  upon  the  same  basis  proposed  by  me  to  you,  with  the  government  of 
France,  to  which  he  is  accredited.  I  have  also  to  say  that  since  the  date  of 
my  writing  I  have  had  the  pleasure  to  converse  personally  with  him  as 
well  as  to  receive  a  letter  from  him  in  answer  to  my  inquiry. 

Mr.  Dayton  informs  me  that,  some  time  since,  he  made  a  proposal  to  the 
French  government  to  adopt  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  in 
1856,  with  an  addition  to  the  first  clause,  in  substance  the  same  with  that 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


109 


heretofore  proposed  by  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Mason,  under  instructions  given 
by  Mr.  Marey,  then  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States.  To  that 
proposal  he  received  an  answer  from  the  French  minister  of  foreign  affairs, 
declining  to  consider  the  proposition,  not  for  any  objection  entertained 
against  it,  but  because  it  was  a  variation  from  the  terms  of  the  original 
agreement  requiring  a  prior  reference  of  it  to  the  other  parties  to  that  con¬ 
vention.  This  answer  does  not,  in  his  opinion,  make  the  ultimate  accept¬ 
ance  of  his  addition  impossible,  and  he  does  not  feel  as  if  he  ought  to  aban¬ 
don  the  support  of  what  he  considers  as  so  beneficent  an  amendment  to  the 
original  plan  until  he  has  reason  to  despair  of  success.  He  has  therefore 
requested  to  know  of  me  whether  I  have  reason  to  believe  perseverance  in 
this  direction  to  be  fruitless. 

For  my  part  I  entirely  concur  in  the  view  entertained  by  Mr.  Dayton  of 
the  value  of  this  amendment.  I  also  know  so  well  the  interest  that  my 
government  takes  in  its  adoption  as  to  be  sure  that  it  would  refuse  to  justify 
a  further  procedure  on  our  part  which  was  not  based  upon  a  reasonable 
certainty  that  success  is  not  attainable,  at  least  at  the  present  moment.  I 
have,  therefore,  ventured  to  state  to  Mr.  Dayton  my  belief  that  I  have  that 
certainty.  I  have  therefore  mentioned  to  him,  what  I  have  likewise  commu¬ 
nicated  to  the  proper  department  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
the  fact  that  in  the  last  conference  I  had  the  honor  to  hold  with  your  lord- 
ship,  allusion  having  been  made  to  the  amendment  of  Mr.  Dayton,  I  said 
that  that  amendment  was  undoubtedlv  the  first  wish  of  my  government,  and 
that  I  had  instructions  to  press  it  if  there  was  the  smallest  probability  of 
success,  but  that  I  supposed  this  matter  to  have  been  already  definitively 
acted  upon.  To  which  I  understood  your  lordship  to  signify  your  assent, 
and  to  add  that  I  might  consider  the  proposition  as  inadmissible.  If  I  have 
made  no  mistake  in  reporting  the  substance  of  what  passed  between  us,  Mr. 
Dayton  tells  me  he  is  satisfied,  and  expresses  his  readiness  to  proceed  on  the 
basis  proposed  by  me  to  your  lordship  with  the  French  government.  But  in 
order  to  remove  all  probability  of  misconception  between  him  and  myself,  I 
have  taken  the  liberty  of  recalling  your  lordship’s  attention  to  the  matter 
before  it  may  be  too  late.  Should  there  have  been  any  essential  error  of 
fact  on  the  main  point,  I  trust  your  lordship  will  do  me  the  favor  to  set  me 
right. 

Should  it  happen,  on  the  contrary,  that  I  am  correct,  I  believe  it  will  not 
be  necessary  to  interpose  any  delay  in  the  negotiation  for  further  reference 
to  the  government  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Dayton  will  take  the  necessary 
steps  to  apprise  the  government  of  the  Emperor  of  the  French  of  his  inten¬ 
tion  to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  pure  and  simple,  and  the  negotia¬ 
tions  may  be  carried  on  simultaneously  in  both  countries  as  soon  as  the 
necessary  arrangements  can  be  perfected  on  the  respective  sides. 

However  my  government  may  regret  that  it  has  not  been  able  to  expand 
the  application  of  the  principles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  to  the  extent 
which  it  deems  desirable,  it  is  too  well  convinced  of  the  great  value  of  the 
recognition  actually  given  to  those  principles  by  the  great  powers  of  Europe 
in  that  act,  longer  to  hesitate  in  giving  in  its  cordial  adhesion.  But  it 
ardently  cherishes  the  hope  that  time  and  the  favoring  progress  of  correct 
opinion  may  before  long  bring  about  opportunities  for  additional  develop¬ 
ments  of  the  system  they  initiate,  through  the  co-operation  of  all  maritime 
nations  of  the  earth,  and  most  especially  of  one  so  enlightened  and  philan¬ 
thropic  as  Great  Britain. 

Renewing  the  assurances  of  my  highest  consideration,  I  have  the  honor 
to  be  your  lordship’s  most  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

The  Right  Don.  Lord  John  Russell,  &c.}  dec.,  <kc. 


110 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Foreign  Office,  July  31,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  29th  instant,  in 
which  you  inform  me  that  Mr.  Dayton,  some  time  since,  made  a  proposal 
to  the  French  government  to  adopt  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris 
in  1856,  with  an  addition  to  the  first  clause,  in  substance  the  same  with  that 
heretofore  proposed  by  his  predecessor,  Mr.  Mason,  under  instructions  given 
by  Mr.  Marcy,  then  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States.  After  giving 
an  account  of  the  reception  given  to  that  proposition  by  the  French  govern¬ 
ment,  and  the  value  attached  to  it  by  Mr.  Dayton  and  yourself,  you  proceed 
to  state  that  in  a  conversation  with  me  you  told  me  that  the  addition  pro¬ 
posed  was  the  first  wish  of  your  government,  and  that  you  had  instructions 
to  press  it  if  there  was  the  smallest  probability  of  success,  but  that  you 
supposed  this  matter  to  have  been  already  definitively  acted  upon.  You 
represent  me  as  signifying  my  assent,  and  adding  that  I  considered  the  propo¬ 
sition  as  inadmissible. 

So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  this  statement  is  perfectly  correct. 

You  go  on  to  inform  me  that  in  the  case  of  your  statement  being  correct, 
Mr.  Dayton  will  take  the  necessary  steps  to  apprise  the  French  government 
of  his  intention  to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  “  pure  and  simple, 
and  that  the  negotiations  may  be  carried  on  simultaneously  in  both 
countries  as  soon  as  the  necessary  arrangements  can  be  perfected  on  the 
respective  sides.” 

You  will  doubtless  recollect  that  in  my  letter  of  the  18th  instant,  I  stated 
that  “her  Majesty’s  government  are  of  opinion  that  they  should  be  assured 
that  the  United  States  are  ready  to  enter  into  a  similar  engagement  with 
France,  and  with  the  other  maritime  powers  who  are  parties  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  Paris,  and  do  not  propose  to  make  simply  and  separately  a  conven¬ 
tion  with  Great  Britain  onlv.” 

*/ 

But  as  I  agreed  in  the  same  letter  to  waive  this  assurance,  and  as  I  con¬ 
clude,  in  point  of  fact,  the  United  States  are  willing  to  sign  similar  conven¬ 
tions  with  all  the  states  parties  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  I  shall  be  ready 
to  carry  on  the  negotiations  as  soon  as  the  necessary  arrangements  can  be 
perfected  in  London  and  Paris,  so  that  the  conventions  may  be  signed  simul¬ 
taneously  at  those  two  capitals. 

I  need  scarcely  add  that  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  the  engagement  will 
be  prospective,  and  will  not  invalidate  anything  already  done. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obe¬ 
dient,  humble  servant, 

J.  RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  55.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  6,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch,  No.  17,  of  the  date  of  July  19th,  has  been  received. 

1  entirely  approve  of  the  letter  which  you  addressed  to  Lord  John  Russell, 
of  the  11th,  a  copy  of  which  accompanied  that  despatch,  and  1  wait  now  with 
impatience,  yet  not  without  some  solicitude,  for  the  action  of  the  British  gov¬ 
ernment  upon  our  propositions  which  we  so  early  sent  forward  in  good  faith, 
and  which  by  such  strange  accidents  have  been  so  long  in  reaching  the 
cabinet  of  Great  Britain. 

1  need  hardly  tell  you  that  the  same  mail  which  conveyed  our  propositions 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Ill 


concerning*  maritime  rig*hts  for  the  consideration  of  the  British  government, 
carried  also  propositions  literally  the  same  for  the  consideration  of  the  French 
government,  and  that  of  every  other  maritime  power  in  Europe. 

All  those  powers  are  understood  to  be  awaiting  the  action  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  Great  Britain. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  (£c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  58.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  12,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  ot  July  24th  (No.  20)  has  been  received.  I  am  glad 
that  you  have  had  a  full  and  satisfactory  conversation  with  Mr.  Dayton.  It 
seems  probable  that  we  shall  now  be  able  to  arrive  at  an  understanding  with 
the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and  France  on  the  subject  of  international 
law  relating  to  maritime  war. 

The  shock  produced  b}7  the  reverse  of  our  arms  at  Bull  Run  has  passed 
away.  The  army  is  reorganized;  the  elections  show  that  reaction  against 
disunion  has  begun  in  the  revolutionary  States,  and  we  may  confidently  look 
for  a  restoration  of  the  national  authority  throughout  the  Union. 

If  our  foreign  relations  were  once  promptly  re-established  on  their  former 
basis,  the  disunion  sentiment  would  languish  and  perish  within  a  year. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 

No.  29.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  August  16,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  read  with  great  attention  the  contents  of  your  despatch,  No. 
42,  dated  the  21st  July,  and  shall  avail  myself  of  the  argument  upon  the  next 
occasion  of  an  interview  with  Lord  Russell.  But  I  have  not  thought  it 
necessary  to  solicit  one,  for  the  reason  that  the  government  here  does  not 
appear  to  contemplate  any  change  of  position,  so  long  as  the  blockade  shall 
be  kept  up. 

In  the  last  conference  which  I  had  with  his  lordship,  I  took  occasion 
towards  the  close  of  it  to  intimate  to  him  that  he  must  not  infer,  from  my  not 
having  entered  into  discussion  of  the  merits  of  the  question,  that  I  gave  any 
assent  to  the  position  taken  by  him  about  the  right  of  a  government  to  close 
its  own  ports,  when  held  by  forcible  possession  of  persons  resisting  its 
authority.  On  the  contrary,  I  desired  to  reserve  for  my  government  the 
treatment  of  it  as  an  open  question  whenever  it  should  take  any  practical 
shape. 

In  the  meantime  I  had  every  reason  to  believe  that  it  was  the  design  of 
the  President  to  persevere  in  the  blockade,  and  to  that  end  that  the  neces¬ 
sary  forces  were  in  constant  process  of  accumulation.  This  course,  being 
understood  to  be  one  against  which  his  lordship  had  signified  an  intention 
not  to  raise  any  objection,  I  did  not  think  it  worth  while  now  to  go  further. 


112 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


At  the  time  of  this  interview  no  mention  had  been  made  of  the  precise  form  of 
the  legislation  contemplated  by  Congress.  We  received  more  precise  intel¬ 
ligence  on  this  side  of  the  water  a  few  days  before  the  prorogation  of  Par¬ 
liament.  On  the  very  last  day  for  transacting  business  the  subject  was 
brought  up  in  the  House  of  Commons  on  a  question  addressed  to  Lord  Pal¬ 
merston  by  Mr.  Wyld.  His  lordship’s  answer  has  doubtless  attracted  your 
attention  long  ere  this.  He  considered  the  law  as  merely  giving  a  discre¬ 
tionary  power.  But  if  carried  into  practice  he  construed  it  as  putting  an 
end  to  the  blockade.  So  that,  whether  under  blockade  or  under  a  levy  of 
duties,  foreign  nations  would  have  a  rule  to  go  by.  His  reply  was,  however, 
rather  specious  than  solid,  for  it  did  not  touch  the  difficulty  presented  by  the 
fourth  section,  nor  that  involved  in  a  possible  levy  of  a  double  set  of  duties, 
one  by  the  government  on  ship-board,  and  another  by  the  insurgents  on  land. 
I  am  inclined  to  believe  that  serious  objection  would  be  made  here  in  either 
of  these  contingencies.  For  this  reason  I  do  not  deem  it  expedient  to  stir  the 
matter  until  the  necessity  for  it  shall  become  positive.  Believing  the  gov¬ 
ernment  to  be  on  the  whole  favorably  disposed  towards  us,  and  also  that  it 
is  of  great  importance  to  avoid  all  complications  of  the  present  struggle 
which  would  practically  benefit  the  insurgents,  I  shall  delay  to  open  any 
sources  of  controversy  which  I  think  may  be  avoided  until  especially  in¬ 
structed  to  do  otherwise. 

v|/ 

^  ^ 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington,  D  C. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  61.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  17,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  2  (No.  22)  has  been  received.  It  is 
accompanied  by  a  correspondence  which  has  just  taken  place  between  your¬ 
self  and  Lord  John  Russell,  with  a  view,  on  your  part,  to  remove  possible 
obstructions  against  the  entrance  upon  negotiations,  with  which  you  have 
so  long  been  charged,  for  an  accession  on  our  part  to  the  declaration  of  the 
congress  of  Paris  on  the  subject  of  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime  war. 
It  was  also  understood  by  you  that  a  further  result  of  the  correspondence 
would  be  to  facilitate,  indirectly,  the  opening  of  similar  negotiations  for  a 
like  object,  b}7  Mr.  Dayton,  with  the  government  of  France. 

Your  letter  to  Lord  John  Russell  is  judicious,  and  is  approved.  Lord 
John  Russell’s  answer  is  satisfactory,  with  the  exception  of  a  single  pas¬ 
sage,  upon  which  it  is  my  duty  to  instruct  you  to  ask  the  British  secretary 
for  foreign  affairs  for  an  explanation. 

That  passage  is  as  follows: 

“I  need  scarcely  add  that  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain  the  engagement 
will  be  prospective,  and  will  not  invalidate  anything  already  done.” 

A  brief  statement  of  the  objects  of  the  proposed  negotiation  will  bring 
the  necessity  for  an  explanation  of  this  passage  into  a  stong  light.  We 
have  heretofore  proposed  to  other  maritime  states  certain  meliorations  of 
the  laws  of  maritime  war  affecting  the  rights  of  neutrals.  These  meliora¬ 
tions  are:  1st.  That  the  neutral  flag  shall  protect  enemy’s  goods  not  contra¬ 
band  of  war.  2d.  That  the  goods  of  neutrals,  not  contraband,  though  found 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


113 


under  an  enemy’s  flag-,  shall  not  be  confiscated.  3d.  That  blockades,  to  be 
respected,  must  be  effective. 

The  congress  at  Paris  adopted  these  three  principles,  adding  a  fourth, 
namely,  that  privateering  shall  be  abolished.  The  powers  which  consti¬ 
tuted  that  congress  invited  the  adhesion  of  the  United  States  to  that  decla¬ 
ration.  The  United  States  answered  that  they  would  accede  on  condition 
that  the  other  powers  would  accept  a  fifth  proposition,  namely,  that  the 
goods  of  private  persons,  non-combatants,  should  be  exempt  from  confisca¬ 
tion  in  maritime  war. 

When  this  answer  was  given  by  the  United  States,  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  declined  to  accept  the  proposed  amendment,  or  fifth  proposition,  thus 
offered  by  the  United  States,  and  the  negotiation  was  then  suspended.  We 
have  now  proposed  to  resume  the  negotiation,  offering  our  adhesion  to  the 
declaration  of  Paris,  as  before,  with  the  amendment  which  would  exempt 
private  property  from  confiscation  in  maritime  war. 

The  British  government  now,  as  before,  declares  this  amendment  or  fifth 
proposition  inadmissible  It  results  that,  if  the  United  States  can  at  all 
become  a  party  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  by  the  necessary 
consent  of  the  parties  already  committed  to  it,  this  can  be  done  only  by 
their  accepting  that  declaration  without  any  amendment  whatever,  in  other 
words,  “  pure  and  simple.”  Under  these  circumstances  you  have  proposed 
in  your  letter  to  Lord  John  Russell  to  negotiate  our  adhesion  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  in  that  form.  It  is  at  this  stage  of  the  affair  that  Lord  John  Russell 
interposes,  by  way  of  caution,  the  remark,  that  “  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain 
the  engagement  will  be  prospective,  and  will  not  invalidate  anything  already 
done.” 

I  need  dwell  on  this  remark  only  one  moment  to  show  that,  although 
expressed  in  a  very  simple  form  and  in  a  quite  casual  manner,  it  contains 
what  amounts  to  a  preliminary  condition,  which  must  be  conceded  by  the 
United  States  to  Great  Britain,  and  either  be  inserted  in  the  convention,  and 
so  modify  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  or  else  must  be  in  some 
confidential  manner  implied  and  reserved,  with  the  same  effect. 

Upon  principle  this  government  could  not  consent  to  enter  into  formal 
negotiations,  the  result  of  which,  as  expressed  in  a  convention,  should  be 
modified  or  restricted  by  a  tacit  or  implied  reservation.  Even  if  such  a  pro¬ 
ceeding  was  compatible  with  our  convictions  of  propriety  or  of  expediency, 
there  would  yet  remain  an  insuperable  obstacle  in  the  way  of  such  a 
measure. 


The  President  can  only  initiate  a  treaty.  The  treaty  negotiated  can  come 
into  life  only  through  an  express  and  deliberate  act  of  ratification  by  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States,  which  ratification  sanctions,  in  any  case,  only 
what  is  set  down  in  the  treaty  itself.  I  am  not,  by  any  means,  to  be  under¬ 
stood  in  these  remarks  as  implying  a  belief  that  Lord  John  Russell  desires, 
expects,  or  contemplates  the  practice  of  any  reservation  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States  or  of  Great  Britain.  The  fact  of  his  having  given  you  the 
caution  upon  which  I  am  remarking,  would  be  sufficient,  if  evidence  were 
necessary,  to  exclude  any  apprehension  of  that  sort  It  results  from  these 
remarks  that  the  convention  into  which  we  are  to  enter  must  contain  a  pro¬ 
vision  to  the  effect  that  “the  engagements”  to  be  made  therein  are  “on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain  prospective,  and  will  not  invalidate  anything  already 
done.” 

I  must,  therefore,  now  discuss  the  propriety  of  inserting  such  a  stipulation 
in  the  convention  which  you  have  been  authorized  to  consummate.  The 
proposed  stipulation  is  divisible  into  two  parts,  namely:  First.  That  the  en¬ 
gagements  of  Great  Britain  are  “prospective”  [only.] 


8 


114 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  do  not  see  any  great  objection  to  such  an  amendment.  But  why  should 
it  be  important.  A  contract  is  always  prospective,  and  prospective  only, 
if  it  contains  no  express  stipulation  that  it  shall  be  retrospective  in  its  opera¬ 
tion.  So  much,  therefore,  of  the  stipulation  asked  is  unnecessary,  while,  if 
conceded,  it  might  possibly  give  occasion  to  misapprehension  as  to  its  effect. 
You  will,  therefore,  decline  to  make  such  a  condition  without  first  receiving  a 
satisfactory  explanation  of  its  meaning  and  its  importance. 

The  second  part  of  the  proposed  condition  is,  that  the  “engagement  will 
not  invalidate  anything  already  done.”  I  am  not  sure  that  I  should  think 
this  proposed  condition  exceptionable,  if  its  effect  were  clearly  understood. 
It  is  necessary,  however,  to  go  outside  of  his  lordship’s  letter  to  find  out 
what  is  meant  by  the  words  “  anything  already  done.”  If  “  anything”  per¬ 
tinent  to  the  subject  “  has  been  already  done”  which  ought  not  to  be  invali¬ 
dated,  it  is  clear  that  it  must  have  been  doue  either  by  the  joint  action  of  the 
United  States  and  Great  Britain,  or  by  the  United  States  only,  or  by  Great 
Britain  acting  alone.  There  lias  been  no  joint  action  of  the  United  States  and 
Great  Britain  upon  the  subject.  The  United  States  have  done  nothing  af¬ 
fecting  it;  certainly  nothing  which  they  apprehend  would  be  invalidated  by 
the  simple  form  of  convention  which  they  propose.  I  am  left  to  conclude,  there¬ 
fore  that  the  “  thing”  which  “  has  been  done  already,”  and  which  Great  Britain 
desires  shall  not  be  invalidated  by  the  convention,  must  be  something  which 
she  herself  has  done.  At  the  same  time  we  are  left  to  conjecture  what  that 
thing  is  which  is  thus  to  be  carefully  saved.  It  would  be  hazardous  ou  our 
part  to  assume  to  know,  while  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  British  government, 
with  its  accustomed  frankness,  and  in  view  of  the  desirableness  of  a  perfect 
understanding  of  the  matter,  will  at  once  specify  what  the  thing  which  has 
been  done  by  her,  and  which  is  not  to  be  invalidated,  really  is.  You  will, 
therefore,  respectfully  ask  the  right  honorable  secretary  for  foreign  affairs 
for  an  explanation  of  the  part  of  his  letter  which  I  have  thus  drawn  under 
review,  as  a  preliminary  to  any  further  proceedings  in  the  proposed  nego¬ 
tiation. 

You  will  perform  this  in  such  a  manner  as  to  show  that  the  explanation  is 
asked  in  no  querulous  or  hypercritical  spirit.  Secondly,  you  will  perform  it 
with  reasonable  promptness,  so  that  the  attainment  of  the  important  object 
of  the  negotiation  may  not  be  unnecessarily  delayed;  and,  thirdly,  you  will 
assure  the  British  government  that  while  the  United  States  at  present  see 
no  reason  to  think  that  the  stipulation  proposed  is  necessary  or  expedient, 
yet,  in  view  of  the  great  interests  of  commerce  and  of  civilization  which  are 
involved,  they  will  refuse  nothing  which  shall  be  really  just  or  even  non- 
essential  and  not  injurious  to  themselves,  while  of  course  I  suppose  they  are 
not  expected  in  any  way  to  compromise  their  own  national  integrity,  safety, 
or  honor. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dc.,  dc.,  dc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  63. j  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  17,  1861. 

Sir  :  Alexander  H.  Schultz,  a  special  messenger,  will  deliver  to  you  this 
despatch,  together  with  a  bag  containing  papers  addressed  to  Lord  John 
Russell. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


115 


On  the  5th  instant  I  was  advised  by  a  telegram  from  Cincinnati  that 
Robert  Mure,  of  Charleston,  was  on  his  way  to  New  York  to  embark  at  that 
port  for  England,  and  that  he  was  a  bearer  of  despatches  from  the  usurping 
insurrectionary  authorities  of  Richmond  to  Earl  Russell.  Other  information 
bore  that  he  was  a  bearer  of  despatches  from  the  same  authorities  to  their 
agents  in  London.  Information  from  various  sources  agreed  in  the  fact  that 
he  was  travelling  under  a  passport  from  the  British  consul  at  Charleston. 

Upon  this  information  I  directed  the  police  at  New  York  to  detain  Mr. 
Mure  and  any  papers  which  might  be  found  in  his  possession  until  I  should 
give  further  directions.  He  was  so  detained,  and  he  is  now  in  custody  at 
Fort  Lafayette,  awaiting  full  disclosures.  In  his  possession  were  found 
seventy  letters,  four  of  which  were  unsealed  and  sixty-six  sealed.  There 
was  also  found  in  his  possession  a  sealed  bag  marked  “  Foreign  Office,  3,” 
with  two  labels,  as  follows  :  “  On  Her  Brit.  Maj.  service.  The  Right  Hon¬ 
orable  the  Lord  John  Russell,  M.  P.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.  Despatches  in  charge  of 
Robert  Mure,  Esq ,”  signed  Robert  Bunch.  “  On  Her  Brit.  Maj.  service. 
The  Right  Honorable  the  Lord  John  Russell,  M.  P.,  II.  B.  M.’s  Principal  Sec¬ 
retary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Foreign  Office,  London,  R.  Bunch.”  The 
bag  bears  two  impressions  of  the  seal  of  office  of  the  British  consul  at 
Charleston,  and  seems  to  contain  voluminous  papers. 

There  were  also  found  upon  Mr.  Mure’s  person,  in  an  open  envelope,  what 
pretends  to  be  a  passport  in  the  following  words. — (See  Annex  A.) 

Also  a  letter  of  introduction,  which  is  as  follows. — (See  Annex  B.) 

There  were  also  found  several  unsealed  copies  of  a  printed  pamphlet 
entitled  “A  narrative  of  the  Battles  of  Bull  Run  and  Manassas  Junction, 
July  18th  and  21st.  Accounts  of  the  advance  of  both  armies,  the  battles 
and  rout  of  the  enemy,  compiled  chiefly  from  the  detailed  reports  of  the 
Virginia  and  South  Carolina  press;  Charleston,  Steam  Power  Presses  of 
Evans  &  Coggswell,  No.  3  Broad,  and  103  East  Bay  streets,  1861.” 

This  pamphlet  is  manifestly  an  argument  for  the  disunion  of  the  United 
States.  Several  copies  of  it  were  found  addressed  to  persons  in  England 

The  marks  and  outward  appearance  of  the  bag  indicate  that  its  contents 
are  exclusively  legitimate  communications  from  the  British  consul  at  Charles¬ 
ton  to  II.  B.  M.’s  government.  Nevertheless,  I  have  what  seem  to  be  good 
reasons  for  supposing  that  they  may  be  treasonable  papers,  designed  and 
gotten  up  to  aid  parties  engaged  in  arms  for  the  overthrow  of  this  govern¬ 
ment  and  the  dissolution  of  the  Union.  These  reasons  are:  1st.  That  I  can 
lmrdly  conceive  that  there  can  be  any  occasion  for  such  very  voluminous 
communications  of  a  legitimate  nature  being  made  by  the  consul  at  Charles¬ 
ton  to  his  government  at  the  present  time.  2d.  Consuls  have  no  authority 
to  issue  passports,  the  granting  of  them  being,  as  I  understand,  not  a  con¬ 
sular  but  a  diplomatic  function.  Passports,  however,  have,  in  other  times, 
been  habitually  granted  by  foreign  consuls  residing  in  the  United  States. 
But  soon  after  the  insurrection  broke  out  in  the  Southern  States  a  regula¬ 


tion  was  made  by  this  department,  which  I  have  excellent  means  of  knowing 
was  communicated  to  the  British  consul  at  Charleston,  to  the  effect  that, 
until  further  orders,  no  diplomatic  or  consular  passports  would  be  recog¬ 
nized  by  this  government,  so  far  as  to  permit  the  bearer  to  pass  through 
the  lines  of  the  national  forces  or  out  of  the  country  unless  it  should 
be  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of  State  and  the  commanding  general 
of  the  army  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Mure  had  passed  the  lines  of 
the  army,  and  was  in  the  act  of  leaving  the  United  States  in  open  viola¬ 
tion  of  this  regulation.  Moreover,  the  bearer  of  the  papers,  Robert  Mure, 
is  a  naturalized  citizen  of  the  United  States,  has  resided  here  thirty 
years,  and  is  a  colonel  in  the  insurgent  military  forces  of  Sr  nth  Carolina 


116 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


3 1.  If  the  papers  contained  in  the  bag1  are  not  illegal  in  their  nature  or 
purpose,  it  is  not  seen  why  their  safe  transmission  was  not  secured,  as  it 
might  have  been  by  exposing  them  in  some  way  to  Lord  Lyons,  British 
minister  residing  at  this  capital,  whose  voucher  for  their  propriety,  as  Mr. 
Bunch  must  well  know,  would  exempt  them  from  all  scrutiny  or  suspicion. 
4th.  The  consul’s  letter  to  the  bearer  of  dispatches  attaches  an  unusual 
importance  to  the  papers  in  question,  while  it  expresses  great  impatience 
for  their  immediate  conveyance  to  their  destination,  and  an  undue  anxiety 
lest  they  might,  by  some  accident,  come  under  the  notice  of  this  govern¬ 
ment.  5th.  The  bearer  is  proved  to  be  disloyal  to  the  United  States  by  the 
pamphlet  and  the  letters  found  in  his  possession. 

I  have  examined  many  of  the  papers  found  upon  the  person  of  Mr.  Mure, 
and  I  find  them  full  of  treasonable  information,  and  clearly  written  for  trea¬ 
sonable  purposes.  These,  I  think,  will  be  deemed  sufficient  grounds  for 
desiring  the  scrutiny  of  the  papers  and  surveillance  of  the  bearer  on  my 
part. 

Comity  towards  the  British  government,  together  with  a  perfect  confi¬ 
dence  in  its  justice  and  honor,  as  well  as  its  friendship  towards  the  United 
States,  to  say  nothing  of  a  sense  of  propriety,  which  I  could  not  dismiss, 
have  prevented  me  from  entertaining,  for  a  moment,  the  idea  of  breaking 
the  seals  which  I  have  so  much  reason  to  believe  were  put  upon  the  con¬ 
sular  bag  to  save  it  from  my  inspection,  while  the  bearer  himself  might 
remove  them  on  his  arrival  in  London,  after  which  he  might  convey  the 
papers,  if  treasonable,  to  the  agents  of  the  insurgents,  now  understood  to 
be  residing  in  several  of  the  capitals  in  Europe. 

I  will  not  say  that  I  have  established  the  fact  that  the  papers  in  question 
are  treasonable  in  their  nature,  and  are  made  with  purposes  hostile  and 
dangerous  to  this  country.  But  I  confess  I  fear  they  are  so,  and  I  appre¬ 
hend  either  that  they  are  guilty  despatches  to  the  agents  of  disunion,  or 
else  that,  if  they  are  really  addressed  to  the  British  government,  they  are 
papers  prepared  by  traitors  in  the  insurrectionary  States,  with  a  view  to 
apply  to  the  British  government  for  some  advantage  and  assistance  or  coun¬ 
tenance  from  that  government  injurious  to  the  United  States  and  subversive 
of  their  sovereignty.  Of  course,  I  need  hardly  say  that  I  disclaim  any 
thought  that  Earl  Russell  has  any  knowledge  of  the  papers  or  of  their  being 
sent,  or  that  I  have  any  belief  or  fear  that  the  British  government  would,  in 
any  way,  receive  the  papers  if  they  are  illegal  in  their  character,  or  dan¬ 
gerous  or  injurious  to  the  United  States.  It  is  important,  however,  to  this 
government  that  whatever  mischief,  if  any,  may  be  lurking  in  the  transac¬ 
tion,  be  counteracted  and  prevented. 

I  have,  therefore,  upon  due  consideration  of  the  case,  concluded  to  send 
the  bag  by  a  special  messenger,  who  will  deliver  it  into  your  care,  and  to 
instruct  you  to  see  that  it  is  delivered  accordingly  to  its  address  in  exactly 
the  condition  in  which  you  receive  it. 

You  will  also  make  known  to  the  Earl  Russell  the  causes  and  the  circum¬ 
stances  of  the  arrest  and  detention  of  Mr.  Mure  and  his  papers,  adding  the 
assurance  that  this  government  deeply  regrets  that  it  has  become  necessary; 
and  that  it  will  be  very  desirous  to  excuse  the  brief  interruption  of  the  cor¬ 
respondence  of  the  British  consul,  if  it  is  indeed  innocent,  and  will  endeavor, 
in  that  case,  to  render  any  further  satisfaction  which  may  be  justty  required. 
On  the  other  hand,  you  will,  in  such  terms  as  you  shall  find  most  suitable 
and  proper,  intimate  that  if  the  papers  in  question  shall  prove  to  be  treason¬ 
able  against  the  United  States,  I  expect  that  they  will  be  delivered  up  to  you 
,for  the  use  of  this  government,  and  that  her  British  Majesty’s  consul  at  Charles¬ 
ton  will,  in  that  case,  be  promptly  made  to  feel  the  severe  displeasure  of  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


117 


government  which  employs  him,  since  there  can  he  no  greater  crime  against 
society  than  a  perversion  by  the  agent  of  one  government  of  the  hospitality 
afforded  to  him  by  another,  to  designs  against  its  safety,  dignity,  and  honor. 

I  think  it  proper  to  say  that  I  have  apprised  Lord  Lyons  of  this  transac¬ 
tion,  and  of  the  general  character  of  this  letter,  while  lie  is  not  in  any  way 
compromised  by  any  assent  given  to  my  proceedings,  or  by  any  opinion  ex¬ 
pressed  by  him  or  asked  from  him. 

1  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  F.  Adams,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  64.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  IT,  1861. 

Sir  :  Among  the  letters  found  on  the  person  of  Robert  Mure,  mentioned 
in  my  despatch  No.  63,  of  this  date,  there  are  many  which  more  or  less 
directly  implicate  Mr.  Robert  Bunch,  the  British  consul  at  Charleston,  as  a 
conspirator  against  the  government  of  the  United  States.  The  following  is 
an  extract  from  one  of  them: 

“  Mr.  B.,  on  oath  of  secrecy,  communicated  to  me  also  that  the  first  step 
to  recognition  was  taken.  He  and  Mr.  Belligny  together  sent  Mr.  Trescot 

to  Richmond  yesterday,  to  ask  Jeff.  Davis,  president,  to  - the  treaty 

of - to - the  neutral  flag  covering  neutral  goods  to  be  respected. 

This  is  the  first  step  of  direct  treating  with  our  government,  so  prepare  for 
active  business  by  January  1.” 

You  will  submit  this  information  to  the  British  government,  and  request 
that  Mr.  Bunch  may  be  removed  from  his  office,  saying  that  this  government 
will  grant  an  exequatur  to  any  person  who  may  be  appointed  to  fill  it,  who 
will  not  pervert  his  functions  to  hostilities  against  the  United  States. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  F.  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  dec. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  32.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  August  23,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  a  copy  of  a  note  addressed  to  me  by 
Lord  Russell,  transmitting  to  me  a  copy  of  a  declaration  which  he  proposes 
to  make  upon  signing  the  convention,  embodying  the  articles  of  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  Paris,  in  conjunction  with  myself. 

I  have  waited  to  communicate  with  Mr.  Dayton  until  I  now  learn  from 
him  that  Mr.  Thouvenel  proposes  to  him  a  similar  movement  on  the  part  of 
France. 

This  proceeding  is  of  so  grave  and  novel  a  character  as,  in  my  opinion,  to 
render  further  action  unadvisable  until  I  obtain  further  instructions;  and  I 
find  Mr.  Dayton  is  of  the  same  opinion  on  his  side.  I  propose  to  address  a 


118 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


letter  to  his  lordship  stating  my  reasons  for  declining  to  proceed,  as  soon  as 
possible,  but  I  fear  I  shall  not  have  time  to  get  it  ready  and  a  copy  made  in 
season  for  the  present  mail.  I  shall  therefore  postpone  any  further  elucida¬ 
tion  of  my  views  until  the  next  opportunity.  I  do  so  the  more  readily  that 
I  am  informed  by  Mr.  Dayton  that  you  have  ceased  to  consider  the  matter 
as  one  of  any  urgent  importance. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Foreign  Office,  August  19,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  a  declaration  which  I  propose 
to  make  upon  signing  the  convention  of  which  you  gave  me  a  draft  embody 
ing  the  articles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris. 

I  propose  to  make  the  declaration  in  question  in  a  written  form,  and  to 
furnish  you  with  a  copy  of  it. 

You  will  observe  that  it  is  intended  to  prevent  any  misconception  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  engagement  to  be  taken  by  her  Majesty. 

If  you  have  no  objection  to  name  a  day  in  the  course  of  this  week  for  the 
signature  of  the  convention,  Mr.  Dayton  can  on  that  day,  and  at  the  same 
time,  sign  with  M.  Thouvenel  a  convention  identical  with  that  which  you 
propose  to  sign  with  me. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  writh  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

RUSSELL. 

C.  F.  Adams,  Esq.,  Ac.,  Ac.,  Ac. 


Draft  of  Declaration. 

In  affixing  his  signature  to  the  convention  of  this  day  between  her 
Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  the  Earl  Russell  declares,  by  order  of  her  Majesty,  that  her 
Majesty  does  not  intend  thereby  to  undertake  any  engagement  which  shall 
have  any  bearing,  direct  or  indirect,  on  the  internal  differences  now  pre¬ 
vailing  in  the  United  States. 


Mr.  F.  W.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  14.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  8,  No.  25,  has  been  received. 

The  account  you  have  given  us  of  the  impression  made  by  the  reverse  of 
our  arms  at  Manassas  does  not  surprise  me.  But  there  are  to  be  very  many 
fluctuations  of  opinion  in  Europe  concerning  our  affairs  before  the  Union 
will  be  in  danger  from  any  source. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


119 


The  insurgents  are  exhausting  themselves.  We  are  invigorated  even  by 
disappointment.  To-day  the  capital  is  beyond  danger,  and  forces  are  accu¬ 
mulating  and  taking  on  the  qualities  which  will  render  them  invincible. 
The  Union  armies  are  preparing  for  movements  which  will,  in  a  few  weeks, 
remove  the  war  from  the  present  frontier.  The  blockade  is  effective,  and  is 
working  out  the  best  fruits. 

We  do  not  at  present  depart  from  that  policy,  but  we  are  preparing  for 
any  emergency  in  our  foreign  relations. 

The  sentiment  of  disunion  is  losing  its  expansive  force,  and  every  day  it 
grows  weaker  as  a  physical  power. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

F.  W.  SEWARD,  Assistant  Secretary. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  34.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  August  30,  1861 

Sir:  It  is  not  without  regret  that  I  am  compelled  to  announce  the  failme 
of  the  negotiation  which  I  am  led,  by  the  tenor  of  your  despatches,  Nos.  55 
and  58,  to  infer  you  considered  almost  sure  to  succeed.  I  have  now  the 
honor  to  transmit  the  copy  of  a  note  addressed  by  me  to  Lord  Russell  on  the 
the  23d  instant,  assigning  the  reasons  why  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  take  the  re¬ 
sponsibility  of  declining  to  fix  a  day  for  signing  the  convention  agreed  upon 
between  us,  burdened,  as  it  was  to  be,  with  a  contemporaneous  exposition  of 
one  of  its  provisions  in  the  form  of  an  outside  declaration  made  by  his  lord- 
ship  on  behalf  of  her  Majesty  the  Queen.  I  have  gone  so  fully  into  the 
matter  in  that  note  as  to  render  further  explanation  unnecessary.  At  the 
same  time  I  take  the  liberty  to  observe  that,  in  case  the  President  should  be 
of  opinion  that  too  much  stress  has  been  laid  by  me  upon  the  objectionable 
character  of  that  paper,  an  opening  has  been  left  by  me  for  the  resumption 
of  the  negotiation  at  any  moment  under  new  instructions  modifying  my 
views.  I  transmitted  to  Mr.  Dayton  a  copy  for  his  information  immediately 
after  the  original  was  sent.  I  have  not  received  any  later  intelligence  from 
him;  but  I  do  not  doubt  that  he  will  forward  to  the  department  by  this  mail 
his  representation  of  the  state  of  the  corresponding  negotiation  at  Paris,  so 
that  the  whole  subject  will  be  under  your  eye  at  the  same  moment.  From 
the  tenor  of  his  last  note  to  me,  I  was  led  to  infer  that  M.  Thouvenel  con¬ 
templated  a  parallel  proceeding  in  the  conclusion  of  his  negotiation,  and 
that  he  regarded  it  there  very  much  in  the  same  light  that  I  did  here. 

From  a  review  of  the  whole  course  of  these  proceedings  I  am  led  to  infer 
the  existence  of  some  influence  in  the  cabinet  here  adverse  to  the  success  of 
this  negotiation.  At  the  time  of  my  last  conference  with  Lord  Russell  I  had 
every  reason,  from  his  manner,  to  believe  that  he  considered  the  offer  of  the 
project  as  perfectly  satisfactory.  The  suggestion  of  a  qualification  did  not 
make  its  appearance  until  after  the  consultation  with  his  colleagues,  when 
it  showed  itself  first  in  the  enigmatical  sentence  of  his  note  to  me  of  the 
31st  of  July,  of  which,  in  my  despatch  No.  22  to  the  department,  I  confessed 
my  inability  to  comprehend  the  meaning,  and  afterwards  in  the  formal 
announcement  contained  in  his  note  of  the  19th  of  August.  That  the  failure 
of  the  measure,  by  reason  of  it,  could  not  have  been  altogether  unexpected  1 


120 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


infer  from  Mr.  Dayton’s  report  to  me  of  M.  Thouvenel’s  language  to  him,  to 
the  effect  that  his  government  would  prefer  to  lose  the  negotiation  rather 
than  to  omit  making  the  exception. 

Although  the  matter  is  not  altogether  germane  to  the  preceding,  I  will 
not  close  this  despatch  without  calling  your  attention  to  the  copy  of  a  letter 
of  Lord  John  Russell  to  Mr.  Edwardes,  which  I  transmit  as  cut  from  a 
London  newspaper,  The  Globe.  It  purports  to  have  been  taken  from  par¬ 
liamentary  papers  just  published,  although  I  have  not  seen  them,  nor  have 
I  found  it  printed  in  any  other  newspaper.  You  will  notice  the  date,  the 
14th  of  May,  being  the  very  day  of  my  first  visit  to  his  lordship  in  company 
with  Mr.  Dallas,  when  he  did  not  see  us,  as  well  as  of  the  publication  of  the 
Queen’s  proclamation.  I  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  original  form  of 
that  proclamation  described  the  parties  in  America  in  much  the  same  terms 
used  by  his  Lordship,  and  that  they  were  only  qualified  at  a  very  late 
moment,  and  after  earnest  remonstrance.  The  tone  of  the  letter  corresponds 
very  much  with  that  used  to  me,  a  report  of  which  was  transmitted  in  my 
despatch  No.  8. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  1).  C. 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  August  23,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
United  States,  has  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  the  note  of  the 
19th  instant,  of  Lord  Russell,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for 
foreign  affairs,  covering  the  copy  of  a  declaration  which  his  lordship  pro¬ 
poses  to  make  upon  signing  the  convention  which  has  been  agreed  upon 
between  her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  and  the 
United  States  of  America,  embodying  the  articles  of  the  declaration  of 
Paris,  and  at  the  same  time  requesting  him  to  name  a  day  in  the  course  of 
this  week  for  the  signature  of  the  convention,  in  conjunction  with  a  similar 
proceeding,  to  be  arranged  to  take  place  at  Paris,  between  Mr.  Dayton  and 
the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  on  the  part  of  the  French  government. 

The  first  step  rendered  necessary  by  this  proposal  was  that  the  under¬ 
signed  should  communicate  with  Mr.  Dayton  in  order  to  know  whether  a 
similar  declaration  was  contemplated  on  the  part  of  the  Emperor  of  the 
French,  and  in  case  it  was,  whether  Mr.  Dayton  was  still  prepared  to  pro¬ 
ceed.  Mr.  Dayton’s  letter  containing  that  information  was  received  only 
yesterday,  which  fact,  in  conjunction  with  a  brief  absence  of  the  under¬ 
signed,  will  account  for  the  apparent  delay  in  answering  his  lordship’s  note. 

In  order  perfectly  to  understand  the  position  of  the  undersigned,  it  will 
be  necessary  briefly  to  recapitulate  the  particulars  of  this  negotiation.  But  a 
few  weeks  after  the  accession  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  office, 
his  attention  was  turned  to  the  state  in  which  the  negotiation  on  the  subject 
of  the  four  articles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  had  been  left  by  his  predecessor; 
and  his  disposition  manifested  itself  to  remove  so  far  as  lie  could  the  obsta¬ 
cles  which  had  been  interposed  in  the  way  of  completing  it.  To  that  end, 
among  the  duties  with  which  the  undersigned  was  charged  immediately 
upon  his  arrival  at  his  post,  was  an  instruction  at  once  to  make  overtures  to 
her  Majesty’s  government  for  a  revival  of  the  negotiation  here.  And,  in  case 
of  the  manifestation  of  a  favorable  disposition,  he  was  further  directed  to 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


121 


offer  a  project  of  a  convention,  which  he  was  properly  empowered  to  sign, 
after  satisfying  himself  that  the  incorporation  of  the  amendment  which  had 
been  proposed  by  Mr.  Marcy  for  the  government  of  the  United  States,  at  a 
former  stage  of  the  proceedings,  was  not  attainable. 

On  the  eighteenth  of  May  last,  being  the  day  of  the  first  interview  had 
with  his  lordship,  the  subject  was  only  opened  by  the  undersigned  as  one  on 
which  he  had  power  to  negotiate,  and  the  disposition  of  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment  to  proceed  here  was  tested.  It  was  then  that  lie  received  a  distinct 
impression  from  his  lordship  that  the  matter  had  been  already  committed  to 
the  care  of  Lord  Lyons  at  Washington,  with  authority  to  agree  with  the 
government  of  the  United  States  on  the  basis  of  the  adoption  of  three  of 
the  articles,  and  the  omission  of  the  fourth  altogether.  Considering  this  to 
be  equivalent  to  declining  a  negotiation  here,  and  at  the  same  time  relieving 
him  from  a  duty  which  would  be  better  performed  by  his  own  government, 
the  undersigned  cheerfully  acquiesced  in  this  suggestion,  and  accordingly 
wrote  home  signifying  his  intention  not  to  renew  the  subject  unless  again 
specifically  instructed  so  to  do. 

One  month  passed  away,  when  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States, 
after  a  conference  with  Lord  Lyons,  learning  that  his  lordship  did  not  con¬ 
firm  the  representation  of  the  powers  with  which  the  undersigned  had  under¬ 
stood  him  to  be  clothed,  and,  so  far  from  it,  that  he  did  not  feel  authorized 
to  enter  into  any  convention  at  all  at  Washington,  directed  the  undersigned 
to  inform  the  government  in  London  of  this  fact,  and  to  propose  once  more 
to  enter  into  convention,  if  agreeable,  here. 

Immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  these  instructions,  the  undersigned  wrote 
a  letter  on  the  11th  of  July,  as  his  lordship  may  remember,  reciting  these 
facts  and  renewing  the  question  whether  a  proposal  of  negotiation  at  this 
place  would  be  acceptable  to  her  Majesty’s  government.  To  this  letter  a 
favorable  reply  was  received  on  the  13th,  and  an  interview  took  place  the 
same  day,  at  which,  after  ascertaining  that  the  amendment  desired  by  his 
government  would  not  be  successful,  the  undersigned  had  the  honor  to  pre¬ 
sent  to  his  lordship  the  project  in  the  same  form  in  which  it  had  been,  nearly 
two  months  before,  placed  in  his  hands,  and  in  which  it  has  been  since  ac¬ 
cepted,  and  to  offer  a  copy  of  his  powers  to  negotiate.  His  lordship,  after 
examining  the  former,  remarked  that  he  would  take  it  for  consultation  with 
his  colleagues,  and  in  the  meantime  that  there  was  no  necessity  for  a  copy 
of  the  powers. 

The  next  step  in  the  negotiation  was  the  receipt,  by  the  undersigned,  of 
a  letter  from  his  lordship,  dated  the  18th  of  July,  calling  his  attention  to  the 
fact  that  the  declaration  of  Paris  contemplated  a  concurrence  of  various 
powers,  and  not  an  insulated  engagement  of  two  powers  only,  and  requiring 
an  assurance  that  the  United  States  were  ready  to  enter  into  a  similar  en¬ 
gagement  with  France  and  with  other  maritime  powers,  parties  to  the 
declaration,  and  not  with  Great  Britain  alone.  But,  inasmuch  as  this  process 
itself  might  involve  the  loss  of  much  time,  that  her  Majesty’s  government 
would  deem  themselves  authorized  to  advise  the  Queen  to  conclude  a  con¬ 
vention  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  so  soon  as  they  should  have 
been  informed  that  a  similar  convention  has  been  agreed  upon  between  the 
President  and  the  Emperor  of  the  French. 

Upon  receiving  this  reply  the  undersigned,  not  unwilling  to  do  everything 
within  his  power  to  forward  an  object  considered  by  him  of  the  greatest 
value,  immediately  opened  a  correspondence  with  Mr.  Dayton,  the  represen¬ 
tative  of  the  United  States  at  Paris,  to  learn  from  him  whether  such  an 
arrangement  as  that  contemplated  in  his  lordship’s  note  could  not  be  at  once 
carried  out  by  him.  With  some  reluctance  Mr.  Dayton  consented  to  promote 
it,  but  only  upon  the  production  of  evidence  satisfactory  to  his  own  mind 


122 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


that  the  amendment  originally  proposed  by  Mr.  Marcy  was  not  attainable. 
The  undersigned  then  addressed  himself  to  his  lordship,  and  with  entire 
success.  The  evidence  was  obtained,  Mr.  Dayton  acted  with  success,  and 
no  further  difficulties  then  seemed  to  be  in  the  way  of  a  speedy  and  simul¬ 
taneous  affirmation  of  concurrence  in  the  principles  of  the  declaration  of 
Paris  by  the  United  States,  in  conjunction  with  the  other  powers. 

The  public  law  thus  declared  to  be  established,  embraced  four  general 
propositions,  to  wit: 

1.  Privateering  is  abolished. 

2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  except  contraband  of  war. 

3.  Neutral  goods  safe  under  an  enemy’s  flag,  with  the  same  exception. 

4.  Blockades,  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective. 

The  government  of  the  United  States,  in  proposing  to  join  in  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  these  principles,  are  believed  by  the  undersigned  to  be  acting 
with  the  single  purpose  of  aiding  to  establish  a  permanent  doctrine  for  all 
time.  Convinced  of  the  value  of  it  in  ameliorating  the  horrors  of  warfare 
all  over  the  globe,  they  have,  perhaps  against  their  notions  of  their  imme¬ 
diate  interest,  consented  to  waive  temporary  considerations  of  expediency 
for  the  attainment  of  a  great  ultimate  good.  They  are  at  last  prepared  to 
sign  and  seal  an  engagement  pure  and  simple,  and  by  so  doing  to  sacrifice 
the  hope  of  attaining,  at  least  for  the  present,  an  improvement  of  it  to 
which  they  have  always  attached  great  value.  But  just  at  the  moment 
when  their  concurrence  with  the  views  of  the  other  maritime  powers  of  the 
world  would  seem  to  be  certain,  they  are  met  with  a  proposition  from  one, 
if  not  more,  of  the  parties,  to  accompany  the  act  with  a  proceeding  somewhat 
novel  and  anomalous  in  this  case,  being  the  presentation  of  a  written  decla¬ 
ration,  not  making  a  part  of  the  convention  itself,  but  intended  to  follow 
the  signature,  to  the  effect  that  “her  Majesty  does  not  intend  thereby  to 
undertake  any  engagement  which  shall  have  any  bearing,  direct  or  indirect , 
on  the  internal  differences  now  prevailing  in  the  United  States.” 

Obviously  a  consent  to  accept  a  particular  exception,  susceptible  of  so 
wide  a  construction  of  a  joint  instrument,  made  by  one  of  the  parties  to  it 
in  its  own  favor  at  the  time  of  signing,  would  justify  the  idea  that  some 
advantage  is,  or  may  be  suspected  to  be,  intended  to  be  taken  by  the  other. 
The  natural  effect  of  such  an  accompaniment  would  seem  to  be  to  imply 
that  the  goverment  of  the  United  States  might  be  desirous,  at  this  time,  to 
take  a  part  in  the  declaration,  not  from  any  high  purpose  or  durable  policy, 
but  with  the  view  of  securing  some  small  temporary  object  in  the  unhappy 
struggle  which  is  going  on  at  home.  Such  an  inference  would  spoil  all  the 
value  that  might  be  attached  to  the  act  itself.  The  mere  toleration  of  it  would 
seem  to  be  equivalent  to  a  confession  of  their  own  weakness.  Rather  than 
that  such  a  record  should  be  made,  it  were  a  thousand  times  better  that  the 
declaration  remain  unsigned  forever.  If  the  parties  to  the  instrument  are  not 
to  sign  it  upon  terms  of  perfect  reciprocity,  with  all  their  duties  and  obliga¬ 
tions  under  it  perfectly  equal,  and  without  equivocation  or  reservation  of 
any  kind,  on  any  side,  then  is  it  plain  that  the  proper  season  for  such  an 
engagement  has  not  yet  arrived.  It  were  much  wiser  to  put  it  off  until 
nations  can  understand  each  other  better. 

There  is  another  reason  whv  the  undersigned  cannot  at  this  moment  con- 
sent  to  proceed  under  the  powers  conferred  on  him  to  complete  this  negotia¬ 
tion  when  clogged  with  such  a  declaration,  which  is  drawn  from  the  peculiar 
construction  of  the  government  of  his  own  country.  By  the  terms  of  the 
Constitution,  every  treaty  negotiated  by  the  President  of  the  United  States 
must,  before  it  is  ratified,  be  submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  Senate  of 
the  United  States.  The  question  immediately  arises  in  this  case,  what  is  to 
be  done  with  a  declaration  like  that  which  his  lordship  proposes  to  make. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


123 


Is  it  a  part  of  the  treaty,  or  is  it  not  ?  If  it  be,  then  is  the  undersigned 
exceeding  his  instructions  in  signing  it,  for  the  paper  made  no  part  of  the 
project  which  he  was  directed  to  propose ;  and  in  case  he  should  sign,  the 
addition  must  be  submitted  to  the  Senate  lor  its  advice  and  consent,  together 
with  the  paper  itself.  If  it  be  not,  what  advantage  can  the  party  making 
the  declaration  expect  from  it  in  modifying  the  construction  of  the  project, 
when  the  Senate  have  never  had  it  before  them  for  their  approval  ?  It  either 
changes  the  treaty  or  it  does  not.  If  it  does,  then  the  question  arises,  why 
did  not  the  undersigned  procure  it  to  be  incorporated  into  it?  On  the  other 
hand,  if  it  do  not,  why  did  he  connive  at  the  appearance  of  a  desire  to  do  it 
without  effecting  the  object? 

The  undersigned  has  ever  been  desirous  of  maintaining  and  perpetuating 
the  most  friendly  relations  between  her  Majesty’s  kingdom  and  the  United 
States,  and  he  continues  to  act  in  the  same  spirit  when  he  deprecates  the  sub¬ 
mission  of  any  project  clogged  with  a  similar  exception  to  the  consideration 
of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  He  has  reason  to  believe  that  already  a 
strong  disinclination  exists  in  that  body  to  the  acceptance  of  the  first  of  the 
four  propositions  embraced  in  the  declaration  itself,  and  that  mainty  because 
it  is  esteemed  to  be  too  much  of  a  concession  to  the  great  maritime  powers. 
Were  he  now  to  consent,  without  further  instructions,  to  accept  a  qualifica¬ 
tion  which  would  scarcely  fail  to  be  regarded  by  many  unfavorably  disposed 
persons  as  more  or  less  directly  an  insult  to  the  nation  in  its  present  dis¬ 
tress,  he  should  deem  himself  as  incurring  the  hazard  of  bringing  on  difficul¬ 
ties  which  he  professes  an  earnest  wish  to  avoid. 

For  the  reasons  thus  given  the  undersigned  has  reluctantly  come  to  the 
conclusion  to  decline  to  fix  a  day  for  proceeding  in  the  negotiation  under  its 
present  aspect,  at  least  until  he  shall  have  been  able  to  submit  the  whole 
question  once  more  to  the  judgment  of  the  authorities  under  which  he  has 
the  honor  to  act. 

A  copy  of  this  letter  will  also  be  forwarded  to  Mr.  Dayton  for  his  informa¬ 
tion. 

The  undersigned  prays  Lord  Russell  to  receive  the  assurances  of  the  most 
distinguished  consideration  with  which  he  is  his  obedient  servant. 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Right  Hon.  Earl  Russell,  &c.,  &c .,  &c. 


Lord  Bussell  to  Mr.  Edwardes. 

Foreign  Office,  May  14,  1861. 

It  is  for  the  Spanish  government  to  weigh  in  the  balance  of  their  judgment 
the  advantages  and  inconveniences  which  may  arise  from  the  annexation  of 
the  territory  of  the  Dominican  state  to  the  dominions  of  Spain;  and  any 
opinion  which  her,  Majesty's  government  may  form  on  the  subject  can  be 
founded  on  no  other  consideration  than  a  regard  for  what  they  may  look 
upon  as  the  real  and  permanent  interests  of  Spain. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  would,  no  doubt,  have  felt  a  strong  and  decided 
dissatisfaction  at  the  proposed  annexation  if  it  had  been  likely  to  lead  to  the 
introduction  of  slavery  into  a  community  which  is  free  from  the  taint  of  that 
pernicious  institution;  but  the  formal  and  repeated  declarations  of  Marshal 
O’Donnell,  that  under  no  circumstances  will  slavery  be  introduced  into  the 
Dominican  territory,  have  removed  the  main  cause  which  would  have  led  her 


124 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Majesty’s  government  to  view  the  proposed  annexation  with  dislike  and  re¬ 
pugnance. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  certainly  apprehended,  when  first  this  projected 
annexation  was  talked  of,  that  it  might,  if  carried  into  execution,  involve 
Spain  in  unfriendly  discussions,  if  not  in  conflict,  either  with  France  or  with 
the  United  States,  or  with  both.  With  regard  to  France,  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment  have  not  learned  that  the  French  government  has  expressed  any 
positive  objection  to  the  proposed  arrangement,  although  she  may  not  think 
it  advantageous  to  Spain.  It  appears,  also,  from  what  has  been  stated  to 
you,  that  there  is  no  probability  at  present  of  any  positive  resistance  to  the 
measure,  either  by  the  northern  or  the  southern  confederation  of  North 
America.  But  the  Spanish  government  should  not  too  confidently  rely  on  the 
permanent  continuance  of  this  indifference  or  acquiescence  on  the  part  of  the 
North  Americans;  and  it  is  not  impossible  that  when  the  civ.il  war  which  is 
now  breaking  out  shall  have  been  brought  to  an  end,  an  event  which  may 
happen  sooner  than  at  present  appears  likely,  both  the  north  and  the  south 
might  combine  to  make  the  occupation  of  the  Dominican  territory  by  Spain 
the  cause  of  serious  difference  between  the  North  American  governments 
and  that  of  Spain. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  do  not  deny  that  Great  Britain,  as  a  power 
naturally  inclined  to  peace,  and  systematically  addicted  to  commerce,  must 
always  view  a  war  between  any  two  powers  as  an  event  not  only  at  variance 
with  her  principles,  but  to  a  certain  degree  injurious  to  her  interests.  But 
with  respect  to  Spain,  the  motives  of  the  British  government  spring  from  far 
higher  sources.  Great  Britain  and  Spain  have  for  long  periods  of  time,  and 
in  circumstances  of  high  moment  to  each,  been  faithful  and  active  allies; 
their  alliance  has  been  greatly  useful  and  eminently  honorable  to  both.  It 
is  a  fundamental  maxim  of  British  policy  to  wish  well  to  Spain,  and  earnestly 
to  desire  her  welfare  and  prosperity;  and  therefore  any  combination  of  events 
which  might  at  any  time  involve  the  possibility  of  Spain  being  engaged  in  a 
conflict  which,  from  local  circumstances  and  disadvantages,  might  be  in  the 
end  seriously  injurious  to  her  rule  over  her  ancient  possessions,  would  be 
viewed  by  her  Majesty’s  government  with  lively  apprehension  and  sincere 
vegret. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  78.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  2,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  16th  of  August,  number  29,  has  been  received. 

'O  - '  .  O/  '  O  vfy  » '  -  vC 

^  /J\ 

Steadily  for  the  period  of  four  months  our  forces  have  been  coming  into 
the  field  at  the  rate  of  two  thousand  a  day,  and  the  same  augmentation  will 
go  on  nearly  at  the  same  rate  until  500,000  men  will  be  found  in  the  service. 
Our  supplies  of  arms  are  running  low. 

My  despatch,  No.  42,  acknowledged  by  you  in  the  paper  before  me,  was 
written,  as  37ou  will  see  by  its  date,  July  21,  during  the  progress  of  the 
battle  at  Bull  Run,  though  sent  a  few  days  afterwards.  From  this  fact  you 
will  see  that  our  policy  and  our  claims  upon  the  government  of  Great  Britain 
are  not  affected  by  the  caprices  of  military  fortune. 

We  have  now  reached  a  new  and  important  stage  in  the  war.  The  enemy 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


125 


is  directly  before  us,  invigorated  and  inspirited  by  a  victory,  which  it  is  not 
the  part  of  wisdom  for  us  to  undervalue.  But  that  victory  has  brought  with 
it  the  necessity  for  renewed  and  decisive  action  with  proportionate  results. 
The  demoralization  of  our  forces  has  passed  away.  I  have  already  stated 
that  they  are  increasing  in  numbers.  You  will  learn  through  other  channels 
that  they  are  equally  perfecting  themselves  in  discipline.  Commander 
Stringham  and  General  Butler’s  success  at  Hatteras  was  not  merely  a  bril¬ 
liant  affair.  It  brings  nearly  the  whole  coast  of  North  Carolina  under  the 
surveillance  of  our  blockade.  ****** 

I  shall  be  entirely  satisfied  with  the  exercise  of  your  own  discretion  as  to 
the  time  and  form  you  may  choose  for  making  the  explanations  to  the  British 
government  on  those  subjects  with  which  you  are  charged,  and  I  regard  the 
condition  of  things  in  that  respect,  as  you  have  reported  it  to  me,  as,  under 
the  circumstances,  quite  satisfactory.  No  change  of  policy  in  regard  to  the 
blockade  has  been  adopted  since  my  former  despatches. 

I  can  well  enough  imagine  that  your  position  lias  been  made  a  trying  one 
by  the  exultations  of  enemies  of  our  country  and  its  institutions  over  the 
disaster  of  the  21st  of  July.  But  you  will  be  able  to  comprehend  what  they 
cannot,  that  faction  ripens  fast,  whence  its  necessities  impel  to  action  which 
exhausts  its  energies.  Loyalty  in  an}7  free  country  organizes  less  rapidly 
and  gains  strength  from  time  and  even  from  reverses.  The  previous  success 
of  this  government  is  a  sufficient  guaranty  of  the  safety  of  our  cause,  and  is 
a  fact  too  important  to  be  misunderstood  in  the  political  circle  in  which  you 


are  moving. 


I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dc.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  83.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  7,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  received  your  despatch  of  August  23,  number  32.  It  is  ac¬ 
companied  by  a  note  which  was  addressed  to  you  by  Lord  Russell  on  the 
19th  of  the  same  month,  and  a  paper  containing  the  form  of  an  official  decla¬ 
ration  which  he  proposes  to  make  on  the  part  of  her  Majesty  on  the  occa¬ 
sion  of  affixing  his  signature  to  the  projected  convention  between  the  United 
States  and  Great  Britain  for  the  accession  of  the  former  power  to  the  articles 
of  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  for  the  melioration  of  the  rigor  of 
international  law  in  regard  to  neutrals  in  maritime  war.  The  instrument 
thus  submitted  to  us  by  Lord  Russell  is  in  the  following  words:  “  Draft  of 
declaration. — In  affixing  his  signature  to  the  convention  of  this  day,  between 
her  Majesty  the  Queen  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  and  the  United  States  of 
America,  the  Earl  Russell  declares,  by  order  of  her  Majesty,  that  her  Majesty 
does  not  intend  thereby  to  undertake  any  engagement  which  shall  have  any 
bearing,  direct  or  indirect,  on  the  internal  differences  now  prevailing  in  the 
United  States.” 

Lord  Russell,  in  his  note  to  you,  explains  the  object  of  the  instrument  by 
saying  that  it  is  intended  to  prevent  any  misconception  as  to  the  nature  of 
the  engagement  to  be  taken  by  her  Majesty. 

You  have  judged  very  rightly  in  considering  this  proceeding,  on  the  part 
of  the  British  government,  as  one  so  grave  and  so  novel  in  its  character  as 
to  render  further  action  on  your  part  in  regard  to  the  projected  convention 
inadmissible  until  you  shall  have  special  instructions  from  this  department. 


126 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Long  before  the  present  communication  can  reach  you,  my  instructions  of 
August  17.  No.  61,  will  have  come  to  your  hands.  That  paper  directed 
you  to  ask  Lord  Russell  to  explain  a  passage  in  a  note  written  to  you,  and 
then  lying  before  me,  in  which  he  said:  “  I  need  scarcely  add  that  on  the 
part  of  Great  Britain  the  engagement  (to  be  contained  in  the  projected  con¬ 
vention)  will  be  prospective,  and  will  not  invalidate  anything  already  done;” 
which  explanation  I  stated  would  be  expected  as  a  preliminary  before  you 
could  proceed  further  in  the  transaction. 

You  have  thus  been  already  prepared  for  the  information  that  your 
resolution  to  await  special  instructions  in  the  present  emergency  is  approved. 

I  feel  myself  at  liberty,  perhaps  bound,  to  assume  that  Lord  Russell’s  pro¬ 
posed  declaration,  which  1  have  herein  recited,  will  have  been  already  re¬ 
garded,  as  well  by  him  as  by  yourself,  as  sufficiently  answering  the  request 
for  preliminary  explanations  which  you  were  instructed  to  make. 

I  may,  therefore,  assume  that  the  case  is  fully  before  me,  and  that  the 
question  whether  this  government  will  consent  to  enter  into  the  projected 
treaty  with  Great  Britain,  subject  to  the  condition  of  admitting  the  simulta¬ 
neous  declaration  on  her  Majesty’s  part,  proposed  by  Lord  Russell,  is  ready 
to  be  decided. 

I  am  instructed  by  the  President  to  say  that  the  proposed  declaration  is 
inadmissible. 

It  would  be  virtually  a  new  and  distinct  article  incorporated  into  the  pro¬ 
jected  convention.  To  admit  such  a  new  article  would,  for  the  first  time  in 
the  history  of  the  United  States,  be  to  permit  a  foreign  power  to  take  cogni¬ 
zance  of  and  adjust  its  relations  upon  assumed  internal  and  purely  domestic 
differences  existing  within  our  own  country. 

This  broad  consideration  supersedes  any  necessity  for  considering  in  what 
manner  or  in  what  degree  the  projected  convention,  if  completed  either  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  explanation  proposed  or  not,  would  bear  directly  or  indirectly  on 
the  internal  differences  which  the  British  government  assume  to  be  prevail¬ 
ing  in  the  United  States. 

I  do  not  enlarge  upon  this  branch  of  the  subject.  It  is  enough  to  say  that 
the  view  thus  adopted  by  the  President  seems  to  be  in  harmony  equally  with 
a  prudent  regard  to  the  safety  of  the  republic  and  a  just  sense  of  its  honor 
and  dignity. 

The  proposed  declaration  is  inadmissible,  among  other  reasons,  because  it  is 
not  mutual.  It  proposes  a  special  rule  by  which  her  Majesty’s  obligations  shall 
be  meliorated  in  their  bearing  upon  internal  difficulties  now  prevailing  in  the 
United  States,  while  the  obligations  to  be  assumed  by  the  United  States  shall 
not  be  similarly  meliorated  or  at  all  affected  in  their  bearing  on  internal 
differences  that  may  now  be  prevailing,  or  may  hereafter  arise  and  prevail, 
in  Great  Britain. 

It  is  inadmissible,  because  it  would  be  a  substantial  and  even  a  radical 
departure  from  the  declaration  of  the  congress  at  Paris.  That  declaration 
makes  no  exception  in  favor  of  any  of  the  parties  to  it  in  regard  to  the 
bearing  of  their  obligations  upon  internal  differences  which  may  prevail  in 
the  territories  or  dominions  of  other  parties. 

The  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  is  the  joint  act  of  forty-six  great 
and  enlightened  powers,  designing  to  alleviate  the  evils  of  maritime  war, 
and  promote  the  first  interest  of  humanity,  which  is  peace.  The  government 
of  Great  Britain  will  not,  I  am  sure,  expect  us  to  accede  to  this  noble  act 
otherwise  than  upon  the  same  equal  footing  upon  which  all  the  other  parties 
to  it  are  standing.  We  could  not  consent  to  accede  to  the  declaration  with 
a  modification  of  its  terms  unless  all  the  present  parties  to  it  should  stipu¬ 
late  that  the  modification  should  be  adopted  as  one  of  universal  application. 
The  British  government  cannot  but  know  that  there  would  be  little  pros-  • 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


127 


pect  of  an  entire  reformation  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  at  the  present  time, 
and  it  has  not  even  told  us  that  it  would  accept  the  modification  as  a  general 
one  if  it  were  proposed. 

It  results  that  the  United  States  must  accede  to  the  declaration  of  the 
congress  of  Paris  on  the  same  terms  with  all  the  other  parties  to  it,  or  that 
they  do  not  accede  to  it  at  all. 

You  will  present  these  considerations  to  Lord  Russell,  not  as  arguments 
why  the  British  government  ought  to  recede  from  the  position  it  has 
assumed,  but  as  the  grounds  upon  which  the  United  States  decline  to  enter 
into  the  projected  convention  recognizing  that  exceptional  position  of  her 
Majesty. 

if,  therefore,  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  government  shall  adhere  to  the 
proposition  thus  disallowed,  you  will  inform  Lord  Russell  that  the  negotia¬ 
tion  must  for  the  present  be  suspended. 

I  forbear  purposely  from  a  review  of  the  past  correspondence,  to  ascertain 
the  relative  responsibilities  of  the  parties  for  this  failure  of  negotiations,  from 
which  I  had  hoped  results  would  flow  beneficial,  not  only  to  the  two  nations, 
but  to  the  whole  world — beneficial,  not  in  the  present  age  only,  but  in  future 
ages. 

It  is  my  desire  that  we  may  withdraw  from  the  subject  carrying  away  no 
feelings  of  passion,  prejudice,  or  jealousy,  so  that  in  some  happier  time  it 
ma}7  be  resumed,  and  the  important  objects  of  the  proposed  convention  may 
be  fully  secured.  I  believe  that  that  propitious  time  is  even  now  not  distant; 
and  I  will  hope  that  when  it  comes  Great  Britain  will  not  only  willingly  and 
unconditionally  accept  the  adhesion  of  the  United  States  to  all  the  benignant 
articles  of  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  but  will  even  go  further, 
and,  relinquishing  her  present  objections,  consent,  as  the  United  States  have 
so  constantly  invited,  that  the  private  property,  not  contraband,  of  citizens 
and  subjects  of  nations  in  collision  shall  be  exempted  from  confiscation 
equally  in  warfare  waged  on  the  land  and  in  warfare  waged  upon  the  seas, 
which  are  the  common  highways  of  all  nations. 

Regarding  this  negotiation  as  at  an  end,  the  question  arises,  what,  then, 
are  to  be  the  views  and  policy  of  the  United  States  in  regard  to  the  rights 
of  neutrals  in  maritime  war  in  the  present  case.  My  previous  despatches 
leave  no  uncertainty  upon  this  point.  We  regard  Great  Britain  as  a  friend. 
Her  Majesty’s  flag,  according  to  our  traditional  principles,  covers  enemy’s 
goods  not  contraband  of  war.  Goods  of  her  Majesty’s  subjects,  not  contra¬ 
band  of  war,  are  exempt  from  confiscation  though  found  under  a  neutral  or 
disloyal  flag.  No  depredations  shall  be  committed  by  our  naval  forces  or 
by  those  of  any  of  our  citizens,  so  far  as  we  can  prevent  it,  upon  tlieve  ssels  or 
property  of  British  subjects.  Our  blockade,  being  effective,  must  be  respected. 

The  unfortunate  failure  of  our  negotiations  to  amend  the  law  of  nations  in 
regard  to  maritime  war  does  not  make  us  enemies,  although,  if  they  had  been 
successful,  we  should  have  perhaps  been  more  assured  friends. 

Civil  war  is  a  calamity  from  which  certainly  no  people  or  nation  that  has 
ever  existed  has  been  always  exempt.  It  is  one  which  probably  no  nation 
ever  will  escape.  Perhaps  its  most  injurious  trait  is  its  tendency  to  subvert 
the  good  understanding  and  break  up  the  relations  existing  between  the  dis¬ 
tracted  state  and  friendly  nations,  and  to  involve  them,  sooner  or  later,  in 
war.  It  is  the  desire  of  the  United  States  that  the  internal  differences 
existing  in  this  country  may  be  confined  within  our  own  borders.  I  do  not 
suffer  myself  for  a  moment  to  doubt  that  Great  Britain  has  a  desire  that  we 
may  be  successful  in  attaining  that  object,  and  that  she  looks  with  dread 
upon  the  possibility  of  being  herself  drawn  into  this  unhappy  internal  con¬ 
troversy  of  our  own.  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  regarded  as  disrespectful  if 
you  should  remind  Lord  Russell  that  when,  in  1838,  a  civil  war  broke  out  in 


128 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Canada,  a  part  of  the  British  dominions  adjacent  to  the  United  States,  the 
Congress  of  the  United  States  passed  and  the  President  executed  a  law 
which  effectually  prevented  any  intervention  against  the  government  of 
Great  Britain  in  those  internal  differences  by  American  citizens,  whatever 
might  be  their  motives,  real  or  pretended,  whether  of  interest  or  sympathy. 
I  send  you  a  copy  of  that  enactment.  The  British  government  will  judge 
for  itself  whether  it  is  suggestive  of  any  measures  on  the  part  of  Great 
Britain  that  might  tend  to  preserve  the  peace  of  the  two  countries,  and. 
through  that  way,  the  peace  of  all  nations. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adorns  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  39.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  September  7,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  despatches  from 
the  department,  numbered  from  61  to  67,  both  inclusive. 

Since  the  date  of  your  No.  61,  of  the  17th  of  August,  37ou  will  have  learned 
ere  this  that  the  enigmatical  extract  from  Lord  Russell’s  note  to  me,  of 
which  you  instructed  me  to  ask  an  explanation,  has  taken  a  very  distinct 
and  unequivocal  shape,  superseding  all  necessity  for  further  inquiry.  I 
may  take  occasion  to  remark  upon  the  similarity  of  some  of  the  reasoning 
in  your  despatch  with  that  which  you  will  find  already  made  use  of  in  my 
letter  to  his  lordship,  of  the  23d  August,  declining  to  conclude  the  negotia¬ 
tion.  On  the  whole,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  perhaps  as  well  to  let  it  stay 
for  the  present  in  the  situation  in  which  her  Majesty’s  ministers  have  placed 
it.  But  in  this  I  remain  to  be  directed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  President. 

In  this  connexion  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  a  copy  of  Lord  Russell’s 
note  of  the  28th  of  August,  in  reply  to  mine  of  the  23d  of  that  month  to  him, 
already  referred  to  in  the  preceding  paragraph.  I  likewise  send  a  copy  of 
his  instructions  to  Lord  Lyons,  which  he  seems  to  have  furnished  to  me  as 
an  evidence  of  his  good  faith  in  the  representation  he  made  of  them  to  me 
at  the  conference. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Foreign  Office,  August  28,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs,  has  had  the  honor  to  receive  the  note,  of  the  23d  instant,  of  Mr. 
Adams,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Adams  has  accounted  satisfactorily  for  the  delay  in  answering  the 
note  of  the  undersigned  of  the  19th  instant.  Her  Majesty’s  government 
in  all  these  transactions  has  acted  in  concert  with  the  government  of  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


129 


Emperor  of  tlie  French,  and  the  undersigned  cannot  be  surprised  that  Mr. 
Adams  should  wish  to  communicate  with  Mr.  Dayton,  at  Paris,  before  re¬ 
plying  to  his  note. 

The  undersigned  is  quite  prepared,  following  Mr.  Adams,  to  recapitulate 
the  particulars  of  this  negotiation,  and  he  is  happy  to  think  that  in  matters 
of  fact  there  is  no  ground  for  any  controversy  between  them.  He  need  only 
supply  omissions. 

Mr.  Adams,  at  his  first  interview  with  the  undersigned,  on  the  18tli  of 
May  last,  mentioned  the  subject  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  as  one  on  which 
he  had  power  to  negotiate,  and  the  undersigned  then  told  him  that  the  mat¬ 
ter  had  been  already  committed  to  the  care  of  Lord  Lyons,  at  Washington, 
with  authority  to  agree  with  the  government  of  the  United  States  on  the 
basis  of  the  adoption  of  three  of  the  articles  and  the  omission  of  the  first, 
being  that  relating  to  privateering.  So  far,  the  statement  of  Mr.  Adams 
agrees  substantially  with  that  which  is  here  made.  But  the  representation 
of  the  undersigned  was  strictly  accurate,  and  in  faith  of  it  he  subjoins  the 
despatch  by  which  Lord  Lyons  was  authorized  to  negotiate  on  the  basis  of 
the  three  latter  articles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris.  Lord  Lyons,  however, 
was  not  empowered  to  sign  a  convention,  because  that  form  had  not  been 
adopted  by  the  powers  who  originally  signed  the  declaration,  nor  by  any  of 
the  numerous  states  which  afterwards  gave  their  adherence  to  its  articles. 

At  a  later  period,  when  Mr.  Adams  brought  a  copy  of  his  full  powers  to 
the  foreign  office,  the  undersigned  asked  why  the  adherence  of  the  United 
States  should  not  be  given  in  the  same  form  as  that  of  other  powers,  and  he 
was  told,  in  reply,  that  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  required  the 
consent  of  the  Senate  to  any  agreement  with  foreign  powers,  that  agreement 
must  necessarily,  or  at  least  would  most  conveniently,  be  made  in  the 
shape  of  a  convention. 

The  undersigned  yielded  to  this  argument,  and  proposed  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Emperor  of  the  French,  with  which  her  Majesty’s  government 
have  been  acting  throughout  in  complete  agreement,  to  concur  likewise  in 
this  departure  from  the  form  in  which  the  declaration  of  Paris  had  been 
adopted  by  the  maritime  powers  of  Europe. 

But  the  British  government  could  not  sign  the  convention  proposed  by 
the  United  States  as  an  act  of  Great  Britain  singly  and  alone,  and  they 
found  to  their  surprise  that  in  case  of  France  and  of  some  of  the  other  Euro¬ 
pean  powers  the  addition  of  Mr.  Marcy  relating  to  private  property  at  sea 
had  been  proposed  by  the  ministers  of  the  United  States  at  the  courts  of 
those  powers. 

The  undersigned  concurs  in  the  statement  made  by  Mr.  Adams  respect¬ 
ing  the  transactions  which  followed.  Her  Majesty’s  government,  like  Mr. 
Adams,  wished  to  establish  a  doctrine  for  all  time,  with  a  view  to  lessen 
the  horrors  of  war  all  over  the  globe.  The  instructions  sent  to  Lord  Lyons 
prove  the  sincerity  of  their  wish  to  give  permanence  and  fixity  of  principles 
to  this  part  of  the  law  of  nations. 

The  undersigned  has  now  arrived  at  that  part  of  the  subject  upon  which 
the  negotiation  is  interrupted. 

The  undersigned  has  notified  Mr.  Adams  his  intention  to  accompany  his 
signature  of  the  proposed  convention  with  a  declaration  to  the  effect  that 
her  Majesty  “does  not  intend  thereby  to  undertake  any  engagement  which 
shall  have  any  bearing,  direct  or  indirect,  on  the  internal  differences  now 
prevailing  in  the  United  States.” 

The  reasons  for  this  course  can  be  easily  explained.  On  some  recent 
occasions,  as  on  the  fulfilment  of  the  treaty  of  1846,  respecting  the  boundary, 
and  with  respect  to  the  treaty  called  by  the  name  of  the  “Clayton-Bulwer 

9 


130 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


treaty,”  serious  differences  have  arisen  with  regard  to  the  precise  meaning 
of  words,  and  the  intention  of  those  who  framed  them. 

It  was  most  desirable  in  framing  a  new  agreement  not  to  give  rise  to  a 
fresh  dispute 

But  the  different  attitude  of  Great  Britain  and  of  the  United  States  in 
regard  to  the  internal  dissensions  now  unhappily  prevailing  in  the  United 
States  gave  warning  that  such  a  dispute  might  arise  out  of  the  proposed 
convention. 

Her  Majesty’s  government,  upon  receiving  intelligence  that  the  President 
had  declared  by  proclamation  his  intention  to  blockade  the  ports  of  nine  of 
the  States  of  the  Union,  and  that  Mr.  Davis,  speaking  in  the  name  of  those 
nine  States,  had  declared  his  intention  to  issue  letters  of  marque  and  repri¬ 
sals;  and  having  also  received  certain  information  of  the  design  of  both 
sides  to  arm,  had  come  to  the  conclusion  that  civil  war  existed  in  America, 
and  her  Majesty  had  thereupon  proclaimed  her  neutrality  in  the  approach¬ 
ing  contest. 

The  government  of  the  United  States,  on  the  other  hand,  spoke  only  of 
unlawful  combinations,  and  designated  those  concerned  in  them  as  rebels 
and  pirates.  It  would  follow  logically  and  consistently,  from  the  attitude 
taken  by  her  Majesty’s  government,  that  the  so-called  Confederate  States, 
being  acknowledged  as  a  belligerent,  might,  by  the  law  of  nations,  arm 
privateers,  and  that  their  privateers  must  be  regarded  as  the  armed  vessels 
of  a  belligerent. 

With  equal  logic  and  consistency  it  would  follow,  from  the  position  taken 
by  the  United  States,  that  the  privateers  of  the  southern  States  might  be 
decreed  to  be  pirates,  and  it  might  be  further  argued  by  the  government  of 
the  United  States  that  a  European  power  signing  a  convention  with  the 
United  States,  declaring  that  privateering  was  and  remains  abolished, 
would  be  bound  to  treat  the  privateers  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States 
as  pirates. 

Hence,  instead  of  an  agreement,  charges  of  bad  faith  and  violation  of  a 
convention  might  be  brought  in  the  United  States  against  the  power  sign¬ 
ing  such  a  convention,  and  treating  the  privateers  of  the  so-called  Confed¬ 
erate  States  as  those  of  a  belligerent  power. 

The  undersigned  had  at  first  intended  to  make  verbally  the  declaration 
proposed.  But  he  considered  it  would  be  more  clear,  more  open,  more  fair 
to  Mr.  Adams  to  put  the  declaration  in  writing,  and  give  notice  of  it  to  Mr. 
Adams  before  signing  the  convention. 

The  undersigned  will  not  now  reply  to  the  reasons  given  by  Mr.  Adams 
for  not  signing  the  convention  if  accompanied  by  the  proposed  declaration. 
Her  Majesty’s  government  wish  the  question  to  be  fairly  weighed  by  the 
United  States  government.  The  undersigned,  like  Mr.  Adams,  wishes  to 
maintain  and  perpetuate  the  most  friendly  relations  between  her  Majesty’s 
kingdom  and  the  United  States.  It  is  in  this  spirit  that  her  Majesty’s 
government  decline  to  bind  themselves  without  a  clear  explanation  on  their 
part  to  a  convention  which,  seemingly  confined  to  an  adoption  of  the  dec¬ 
laration  of  Paris  of  1856,  might  be  construed  as  an  engagement  to  interfere 
in  the  unhappy  dissensions  now  prevailing  in  the  United  States — an  inter¬ 
ference  which  would  be  contrary  to  her  Majesty’s  public  declarations,  and 
wo  iid  be  a  reversal  of  the  policy  which  her  Majesty  has  deliberately  sanc¬ 
tioned. 

The  undersigned  requests  Mr.  Adams  to  accept  the  assurance  of  his 
.highest  consideration. 

RUSSELL. 

0.  F.  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


131 


No.  136.]  Foreign  Office,  May  18,  1861. 

My  Lord:  Her  Majesty’s  government  deeply  lament  the  outbreak  of  hos¬ 
tilities  in  North  America,  and  they  would  gladly  lend  their  aid  to  the  res¬ 
toration  of  peace. 

You  are  instructed,  therefore,  in  case  you  should  be  asked  to  employ  your 
good  offices  either  singly  or  in  conjunction  with  the  representatives  of  other 
powers,  to  give  your  assistance  in  promoting  the  work  of  reconciliation. 
But  as  it  is  most  probable,  especially  after  a  recent  letter  of  Mr.  Seward, 
that  foreign  advice  is  not  likely  to  be  accepted,  you  will  refrain  from  offering 
it  unasked.  Such  being  the  case,  and  supposing  the  contest  not  to  be  at 
once  ended  by  signal  success  on  one  side  or  by  the  return  of  friendly  feeling 
between  the  two  contending  parties,  her  Majesty’s  government  have  to 
consider  what  will  be  the  position  of  Great  Britain  as  a  neutral  between 
the  two  belligerents. 

So  far  as  the  position  of  Great  Britain  in  this  respect  toward  the  European 
powers  is  concerned,  that  position  has  been  greatly  modified  by  the  decla¬ 
ration  of  Paris  of  April  16,  1856.  That  declaration  was  signed  by  the 
ministers  of  Austria,  France,  Great  Britain,  Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  and 
Turkey. 

The  motives  for  making  that  declaration,  and  for  agreeing  to  the  articles 
of  maratime  law  which  it  proposes  to  introduce  with  a  view  to  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  a  “uniform  doctrine”  and  “fixed  principles,”  are  thus  shortly 
enumerated  in  the  declaration: 

“  Considering  that  maritime  law  in  time  of  war  has  long  been  the  subject 
of  deplorable  disputes; 

“  That  the  uncertainty  of  the  law  and  of  the  duties  in  such  a  matter  gives 
rise  to  differences  of  opinion  between  neutrals  and  belligerents  which  ma 
occasion  serious  difficulties  and  even  conflicts; 

“That  it  is  consequently  advantageous  to  establish  a  uniform  doctrine  on 
so  important  a  point; 

“That  the  plenipotentiaries  assembled  in  congress  at  Paris  cannot  better 
respond  to  the  intentions  by  which  their  governments  are  animated  than  by 
seeking  to  introduce  into  international  relations  fixed  principles  in  this  re¬ 
spect — 

“The  above-mentioned  plenipotentiaries,  being  duly  authorized,  resolved  to 
concert  among  themselves  as  to  the  means  of  attaining  this  object,  and 
having  come  to  an  agreement  have  adopted  the  following  solemn  declara¬ 
tion:” 

1st.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

2d.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

3d.  Neutral’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable 
to  capture  under  enemy’s  flag. 

4th.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective — that  is  to  say,  main¬ 
tained  by  a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the  enemy. 

The  powers  signing  the  declaration  engaged  to  bring  it  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  states  which  had  not  taken  part  in  the  congress  of  Paris,  and  to  in¬ 
vite  those  states  to  accede  to  it.  They  finally  agreed  that  “  the  present  dec¬ 
laration  is  not  and  shall  not  be  binding,  except  between  those  powers  who 
have  acceded  or  shall  accede  to  it.” 

The  powers  which  acceded  to  the  declaration  are  Baden,  Bavaria,  Belgium, 
Bremen,  Brazil,  Duchy  of  Brunswick,  Chili,  the  Argentine  Confederation,  the 
Germanic  Confederation,  Denmark,  the  Two  Sicilies,  the  Republic  of  the 
Equator,  the  Roman  States,  Greece,  Guatemala,  Hay ti,  Hamburg,  Hanover, 
the  Two  Hesses,  Lubeck,  Mecklenburg  Strelitz,  Mecklenburg  Schwerin,  Nas- 


132 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


sau,  Oldenburg,  Parma,  Holland,  Peru,  Portugal,  Saxony,  ^axe  Attenburg, 
Saxe  Coburg  Gotha,  Saxe  Meiningen,  Saxe  Weimer,  Sweden,  Switzerland, 
Tuscany,  Wurtemburg,  Anhalt  Dessau,  Modena,  New  Grenada,  and  Maguay. 

Mr.  Secretary  Marcy,  in  acknowledging,  on  the  28th  of  Juty,  1856,  the 
communication  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  made  to  the  government  of  the 
United  States  by  the  Count  de  Sartiges,  proposed  to  add  to  the  first  article 
thereof  the  following  words  :  “and  that  the  private  property  of  the  subjects 
or  citizens  of  a  belligerent  on  the  high  seas  shall  be  exempted  from  seizure 
by  public  armed  vessels  of  the  other  belligerents,  except  it  be  contraband 
and  Mr.  Marcy  expressed  the  willingness  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  to  adopt  the  clause  so  amended,  together  with  the  other  three  prin¬ 
ciples  contained  in  the  declaration. 

Mr.  Marcy  also  stated  that  he  was  directed  to  communicate  the  approval 
of  the  President  of  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  propositions,  independently 
of  the  first,  should  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  first  article  be  unaccept¬ 
able. 

The  United  States  minister  in  London,  on  the  24th  of  February,  1857, 
renewed  the  proposal  in  regard  to  the  first  article,  and  submitted  a  draft  of 
convention,  in  which  the  article  so  amended  would  be  embodied  with  the 
other  three  articles.  But,  before  any  decision  was  taken  on  this  proposal,  a 
change  took  place  in  the  American  government  by  the  election  of  a  new 
President  of  the  United  States,  and  Mr.  Dallas  announced,  on  the  25th  of 
April,  1857,  that  he  was  directed  to  suspend  negotiations  on  the  subject  ; 
up  to  the  present  time  those  negotiations  have  not  been  renewed. 

The  consequence  is,  that  the  United  States  remaining  outside  the  pro¬ 
visions  of  the  declaration  of  Paris,  the  uncertainty  of  the  law  and  of  inter¬ 
national  duties  with  regard  to  such  matters  may  give  rise  to  differences  of 
opinion  between  neutrals  and  belligerents  which  may  occasion  serious  diffi¬ 
culties  and  even  conflicts. 

It  is  with  a  view  to  remove  beforehand  such  “difficulties,”  and  to  prevent 
such  “conflicts,”  that  I  now  address  you. 

For  this  purpose  I  proceed  to  remark  on  the  four  articles,  beginning,  not 
with  the  first,  but  with  the  last 

In  a  letter  to  the  Earl  of  Clarendon  of  the  24th  of  February,  1857,  Mr. 
Dallas,  the  minister  of  the  United  States,  while  submitting  the  draft  of  a 
new  convention,  explains  the  views  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
on  the  four  articles. 

In  reference  to  the  last  article,  he  says:  “The  fourth  of  those  principles,  re- 
-  specting  blockades,  had,  it  is  believed,  long  since  become  a  fixed  rule  of  the 
law  of  war.” 

There  can  be  no  difference  of  opinion,  therefore,  with  regard  to  the  fourth 
article. 

With  respect  to  the  third  article,  the  principle  laid  down  in  it  has  long 
been  recognized  as  law,  both  in  Great  Britain  and  in  the  United  States.  In¬ 
deed  this  part  of  the  law  is  stated  by  Chancellor  Kent  to  be  uniform  in  the 
two  countries. 

With  respect  to  the  second  article,  Mr.  Dallas  says,  in  the  letter  before 
quoted:  “About  two  years  prior  to  the  meeting  of  congress  at  Paris,  nego¬ 
tiations  had  been  originated  and  were  in  train  with  the  maritime  nations 
for  the  adoption  of  the  second  and  third  propositions  substantially  as  enu¬ 
merated  in  the  declaration.” 

The  United  States  have  therefore  no  objection  in  principle  to  the  second 
proposition. 

Indeed  her  Majesty’s  government  have  to  remark  that  this  principle  is 
adopted  in  the  treaties  between  the  United  States  and  Russia  of  the  22d  of 
July,  1854,  and  was  sanctioned  by  the  United  States  in  the  earliest  period 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


133 


of  the  history  of  their  independence  by  their  accession  to  the  armed  neu¬ 
trality. 

With  Great  Britain  the  case  has  been  different.  She  formerly  contended 
for  the  opposite  principles  as  the  established  rule  of  the  law  of  nations. 

But  having,  in  1856,  upon  full  consideration,  determined  to  depart  from 
that  rule,  she  means  to  adhere  to  the  principle  she  then  adopted.  The 
United  States,  who  have  always  desired  this  change,  can,  it  may  be  pre¬ 
sumed,  have  no  difficulty  in  assenting  to  the  principle  set  forth  in  the  second 
article  of  the  declaration  of  Paris. 

There  remains  only  to  be  considered  the  first  article,  namely,  that  relating 
to  privateering,  from  which  the  government  of  the  United  States  withhold 
their  assent.  Under  these  circumstances  it  is  expedient  to  consider  what  is 
required  on  this  subject  by  the  general  law  of  nations.  Now,  it  must  be 
borne  in  mind  that  privateers  bearing  the  flag  of  one  or  other  of  the  bellige¬ 
rents  may  be  manned  by  lawless  and  abandoned  men,  who  may  commit,  for 
the  sake  of  plunder,  the  most  destructive  and  sanguinary  outrages. 

There  can  be  no  question  but  that  the  commander  and  crew  of  the  ship 
bearing  a  letter  of  marque  must,  by  law  of  nations,  carry  on  their  hostilities 
according  to  the  established  laws  of  war.  Her  Majesty’s  government  must, 
therefore,  hold  any  government  issuing  such  letters  of  marque  responsible 
for,  and  liable  to  make  good,  any  losses  sustained  by  her  Majesty’s  subjects 
in  consequence  of  wrongful  proceeding  of  vessels  sailing  under  such  letters 
of  marque. 

In  this  way  the  object  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  may,  to  a  certain  ex¬ 
tent,  be  attained  without  the  adoption  of  any  new  principle. 

You  will  urge  these  views  upon  Mr.  Seward. 

The  proposals  of  her  Majesty’s  government  are  made  with  a  view  to  limit 
and  restrain  that  destruction  of  property  and  that  interruption  of  trade 
which  must,  in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  be  the  inevitable  consequence  of 
the  present  hostilities.  Her  Majesty’s  government  expect  that  these  pro¬ 
posals  will  be  received  by  the  United  States  government  in  a  friendly  spirit. 
If  such  shall  be  the  case,  you  will  endeavor  (in  concert  with  M.  Mercicr)  to 
come  to  an  agreement  on  the  subject  binding  France,  Great  Britain,  and  the 
United  States. 

If  these  proposals  should,  however,  be  rejected,  her  Majesty’s  government 
will  consider  what  other  steps  should  be  taken  with  a  view  to  protect  from 
wrong  and  injury  the  trade  and  the  property  and  persons  of  British  subjects. 

I  am,  &c.,  &c.,  &c., 

J.  RUSSELL. 

The  Lord  Lyons. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  41.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  September  9,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  at  the  hands  of  your 
messenger,  Captain  Schultz,  of  a  bag  purporting  to  contain  public  despatches 
from  Mr.  Robert  Bunch,  the  consul  at  Charleston,  to  Lord  Russell,  the  head 
of  the  foreign  office  in  London.  In  conformity  with  the  instructions  con¬ 
tained  in  your  No.  63,  dated  the  17th  of  August,  I  immediately  addressed  a 
note  to  Lord  Russull,  explanatory  of  the  reasons  why  such  a  bag  was  re¬ 
ceived  through  this  channel,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  transmitted.  In  it 
you  will  perceive  that  I  have  endeavored  to  adhere  as  closely  as  possible  to 


134 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


the  language  of  your  communication  to  me.  At  the  same  time,  in  obedience 
to  the  directions  contained  in  your  No.  64,  dated  the  17th  of  August,  I 
addressed  another  note  to  Ins  lordship  stating  the  grounds  of  dissatisfaction 
felt  by  the  President  with  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Bunch,  and  requesting  his 
removal.  A  copy  of  this  note  is  likewise  appended  to  the  present  despatch. 
T1  lese  two  notes,  together  with  the  bag  in  exactly  the  same  condition  in 
which  I  received  it  from  Captain  Schultz,  I  directed  my  assistant  secretary, 
Mr  Benjamin  Moran,  to  take  with  him  to  the  foreign  office,  and  there  to 
deliver  into  the  hands  of  his  lordship  if  present,  or,  if  absent  from  town,  into 
those  of  one  of  her  Majesty’s  under  secretaries  of  state  for  foreign  affairs. 
Accordingly,  on  the  afternoon  of  Tuesday,  the  4th  instant,  at  about  quarter 
past  three  o’clock,  as  Mr.  Moram reports  to  me,  he  went  to  the  foreign  office, 
and  finding  Lord  Russell  to  be  absent  from  town,  he  delivered  the  bag  and 
the  notes  into  the  hands  of  Mr.  Layard,  one  of  the  under  secretaries.  Since 
that  time  I  have  had  no  reply  from  his  lordship,  although  I  received  on 
Saturday  last  two  notes  from  him  on  matters  of  minor  consequence.  I  had 
hoped  to  send  something  by  Captain  Schultz,  who  returns  in  the  Great 
Eastern,  and  I  shall  yet  do  so  if  it  should  come  before  the  bag  closes.  I 
have  consented  to  the  departure  of  Captain  Schultz,  mainly  because  Mr. 
Dayton  has  expressed  a  great  desire  that  he  should  take  charge  of  his  de¬ 
spatches  as  soon  as  possible. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 

P.  S. — I  have  just  learned  from  Mr.  Davy  that  the  Bermuda  put  into  Fal¬ 
mouth  for  coals.  Her  cargo  in  arms,  ammunition,  and  clothing,  is  valued 
at  £80,000  sterling.  The  importance  of  intercepting  her  cannot  be  over¬ 
estimated. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Earl  Bussell. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  September  3,  1861. 

My  Lord  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  lordship  that  I  have  received 
by  the  hands  of  a  special  messenger  of  the  government  just  arrived  in  the 
steamer  Europa  from  the  United  States  a  sealed  bag  marked  Foreign  Office, 
3,  with  two  labels,  as  follows  : 

“  On  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  service.  The  right  honorable  the  Lord  John 
Russell,  M.  P.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.  Despatches  in  charge  of  Robert  Mure,  esq. 

“ ROBERT  BUNCH.” 

“  On  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  service.  The  right  honorable  the  Lord  John 
Russell,  M.  P.,  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs,  foreign  office,  London. 

“R.  BUNCH.” 

Agreeably  to  instructions  communicated  by  my  government  to  me,  to  see 
that  this  bag  is  delivered  accordingly  to  its  address  in  exactly  the  condition 
in  which  I  received  it,  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  the  same  by  the  hands 
of  my  assistant  secretary,  Mr.  Benjamin  Moran,  who  is  directed  to  deliver  it 
into  your  own  hands,  if  present,  or,  if  absent,  into  those  of  one  of  the  under 
secretaries  of  state  for  foreign  affairs. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


135 


It  now  becomes  my  duty  to  explain  the  circumstances  under  which  this 
bag*  has  found  its  way  from  the  possession  of  the  person  to  whom  it  was  orig¬ 
inally  intrusted  into  that  of  the  authorities  of  the  United  States. 

It  appears  that  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  on  the  15th  of 
August  last,  received  information  deemed  worthy  of  confidence  that  Mr.  Ro¬ 
bert  Mure,  the  bearer  of  this  bag,  was  at  the  same  time  acting  as  a  bearer 
of  despatches  from  the  insurrectionary  authorities  of  Richmond  to  your  lord- 
ship.  Other  information  came  that  he  was  a  bearer  of  despatches  from  the 
same  authorities  to  their  agents  in  London.  And  still  other  information 
from  various  sources  agreed  in  affirming  that  he  was  travelling  under  a 
passport  issued  by  her  Majesty’s  consul  at  Charleston.  Upon  this  informa¬ 
tion,  instructions  were  sent  forthwith  to  the  police  of  New  York  to  detain 
Mr.  Mure,  and  any  papers  which  might  be  found  in  his  possession.  He  was  ac¬ 
cordingly  detained,  and  is  now  in  custody  at  Fort  Layfette,  awaiting  full 
disclosures.  A  large  number  of  papers  were  found  upon  him,  an  examina¬ 
tion  of  which  was  found  fully  to  sustain  some  portions  of  the  information 
which  had  been  furnished,  and  to  prove  that  Mr.  Mure  was  acting  as  the 
bearer  of  a  treasonable  correspondence  between  persons  acting  in  open  arms 
against  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  their  friends  and  emissa¬ 
ries  in  Great  Britain.  He  had  also  with  him  several  copies  of  a  printed 
pamphlet  purporting  to  be  a  narrative  of  the  events  of  the  21st  of  July  at 
Manassas  Junction,  addressed  to  persons  in  England,  and  evidently  intended 
to  further  the  purposes  of  the  conspirators  in  South  Carolina. 

Robert  Mure,  the  bearer  of  these  papers,  is  represented  to  be  a  naturalized 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  where  he  has  resided  for  thirty  years,  and  as 
actually  holding  a  commission  of  colonel  in  the  insurgent  forces  of  South 
Carolina. 

It  turned  out  to  be  true  that  in  the  hands  of  this  gentleman  were  found 
in  an  open  envelope  a  paper  purporting  to  be  a  passport,  a  copy  of  which 
I  have  the  honor  to  append  to  this  note  as  paper  marked  A  ;  and  a  letter  of 
instructions,  signed  by  Robert  Bunch,  her  Majesty’s  consul  for  the  United 
States,  residing  at  Charleston,  a  copy  of  which  is  likewise  appended,  as  pa¬ 
per  marked  B. 

In  the  absence  of  all  other  evidence  against  Mr.  Bunch  to  prove  his  de¬ 
parture  from  the  line  of  his  legitimate  duty,  it  is  quite  enough  to  call  the 
attention  of  jmur  lordship  to  the  fact  that  in  issuing  such  a  paper  as  this 
passport  he  has  acted  in  direct  contravention  of  a  regulation  issued  by  the 
proper  department  of  the  United  States  of  which  he  had  received  notice, 
which  forbids  all  recognition  of  any  diplomatic  or  consular  passport  so  far 
as  to  permit  the  bearer  to  pass  through  the  lines  of  the  national  forces  or 
out  of  the  country  unless  it  should  be  countersigned  by  the  Secretary  of 
State  and  the  commanding  general  of  the  army  of  the  United  States.  Mr. 
Mure  attempted  to  do  both  with  a  paper  bearing  no  such  signatures. 

There  is,  however,  other  and  still  more  serious  cause  of  complaint  against 
Mr.  Bunch,  as  disclosed  by  the  papers  of  Mr.  Mure,  the  exposition  of  which 
I  am  compelled  to  reserve  for  a  separate  communication.  The  present  pur¬ 
pose  is  confined  to  an  explanation  of  the  reasons  which  have  actuated  the 
government  of  the  United  States  in  taking  the  extraordinary  step  which  has 
had  for  one  of  its  consequences  the  effect  of  diverting,  be  it  but  lor  a  mo¬ 
ment,  a  part  of  the  official  correspondence  of  her  Majesty’s  government  from 
the  channel  in  which  it  was  originally  placed.  I  am  directed  to  express  the 
regret  the  government  feels  that  such  a  measure  had  become  imperative, 
and  to  assure  your  lordship  of  its  earnest  desire  to  make  any  suitable 
amends  which  may  justly  be  required.  If  in  the  process  there  may  have 
happened  a  slight  interruption  of  the  correspondence  of  the  British  consul, 


136 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


it  is  their  desire  that  the  pressing  nature  of  the  emergency  may  induce  your 
lordship  to  excuse  it. 

It  is  needless  to  say  that  the  bag  passes  into  the  hands  of  your  lordship 
in  precisely  the  same  condition  it  came  from  those  of  Mr  Mure.  Comity 
towards  the  government  of  a  friendly  nation,  together  with  a  full  confidence 
in  its  justice  and  honor,  to  say  nothing  of  a  sense  of  propriety,  would  deter 
the  government  which  I  have  the  honor  to  represent  from  entertaining  the 
idea  of  breaking  the  seals  which  protect  it  even  were  there  ten  times  more 
reason  than  there  is  to  presume  an  intention  under  so  sacred  a  sanction  to 
perpetrate  a  wrong  certainly  on  one  and  perhaps  on  both  governments. 
Still  less  is  it  the  intention  of  the  American  government  to  intimate  the 
smallest  suspicion  of  any  privity  whatever  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  in 
Great  Britain  in  aiding,  assisting,  or  countenancing  a  supposed  design  inju¬ 
rious  to  the  United  States  and  subversive  of  their  sovereignty.  Much 
ground  as  there  is  for  presuming  that  it  never  was  the  intention  of  those 
who  prepared  the  package  to  forward  it  to  its  nominal  address,  but  that  it 
was  rather  the  design,  after  bringing  bad  matter  under  this  sacred  sanction 
safely  through  the  dangers  of  hostile  scrutiny,  to  open  the  bag  themselves 
and  to  disseminate  the  contents  far  and  wide  among  the  evil-disposed  emis¬ 
saries  to  be  found  scattered  all  over  Europe;  this  consideration  has  never 
weighed  a  single  moment  to  change  their  views  of  this  trust  when  put  in 
the  balance  with  the  strong  reliance  placed  upon  the  good  faith  of  her  Majes¬ 
ty’s  constitutional  advisers.  Least  of  all  has  it  been  in  the  thought  of  any 
one  that  your  lordship  would  consent  in  any  way  to  receive  the  papers,  if 
they  are  really  illegal  in  their  character  or  dangerous  or  injurious  to  the 
United  States. 

Should  it,  however,  prove  on  inspection  that  any  abuse  has  been  attempted 
in  America  of  the  confidence  to  which  her  Majesty’s  government  is  in  every 
way  entitled,  I  am  directed  to  express  to  your  lordship  the  hope  that  any 
papers  of  a  treasonable  character  against  the  United  States  may  be  delivered 
up  to  me  for  the  use  of  my  government,  and  that  her  Majesty’s  consul  at 
Charleston,  if  shown  to  be  privy  to  the  transmission  of  them  under  such  a 
form,  may  be  made  promptly  to  feel  the  severe  displeasure  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  whose  good  faith  he  has  sought  to  dishonor.  For  there  can  be  no  dif¬ 
ference  of  opinion  as  to  the  nature  of  an  offence  which  involves  the  per¬ 
version  by  the  agent  of  one  government  of  the  hospitality  afforded  to  him 
by  another  to  conspire  against  its  safety,  dignity,  and  honor. 

I  pray  your  lordship  to  accept  the  assurances  of  the  highest  consideration 
with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  lordship’s  most  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

The  Right  Honorable  Earl  Russell,  cfc.,  <Lc.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Earl  Russell. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  September  3,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
United  States,  deeply  regrets  the  painful  necessity  that  compels  him  to 
make  a  representation  to  the  right  honorable  Lord  Russell,  her  Majesty’s 
principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  touching  the  conduct  of  Mr. 
Robert  Bunch,  her  Majesty’s  consul  for  the  port  of  Charleston,  in  the  United 
States.  It  appears  from  the  contents  of  one  of  the  many  letters  found  in  the 
possession  of  Mr.  Robert  Mure,  bearer  of  despatches  from  Mr.  Bunch  to  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


137 


government  of  Great  Britain,  but  detained  as  an  agent  of  the  enemies  of  the 
United  States,  that  the  following  statement  is  made  of  the  action  of  Mr. 
Bunch  in  Charleston. 

“  Mr  B.,  on  oath  of  secrecy,  communicated  to  me  also  that  the  first  step  to 
recognition  was  taken.  He  and  Mr.  Belligny  together  sent  Mr.  Trescot  to 

Richmond  yesterday  to  ask  Jeff.  Davis,  President  to  -  the  treaty  of 

- to - the  neutral  flag  covering  neutral  goods  to  be  respected. 

This  is  the  first  step  of  direct  treating  with  our  government.  So  prepare  tor 
active  business  by  1st  January.” 

The  undersigned  is  instructed  to  submit  this  information  to  her  Majesty’s 
government  with  a  request  that,  if  it  be  found  to  be  correct,  Mr.  Bunch  may 
be  at  once  removed  from  his  office.  The  undersigned  is  further  instructed 
to  add  that  the  President  will  cheerfully  accord  an  exequatur  to  any  person 
who  may  be  appointed  to  succeed  him,  who  will  faithfully  perform  his  func¬ 
tions  without  injury  to  the  rights  and  the  interests  of  the  United  States. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  Lord  Russell 
the  assurances  of  his  highest  consideration. 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

The  Right  Honorable  Earl  Russell,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  84.]  Department  ot  State, 

Washington,  September  10,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  send  you  an  extract  of  a  letter  just  received  from  Mr.  Francis  Ber¬ 
nard,  in  the  island  of  Trinidad.  It  shows  a  clear  case  of  connivance  by  the 
authorities  of  that  island  with  the  insurgents  of  the  United  States,  in  viola¬ 
tion  of  the  rights  and  dignity  of  this  government,  if  the  facts  are  truly  pre¬ 
sented.  You  will  bring  the  subject  to  the  notice  of  Lord  Russell,  and  will, 
if  the  case  shall  not  be  satisfactorily  explained,  ask  for  such  proceedings  in 
the  premises  as  shall  make  the  authorities  of  the  island  sensible  of  the  dis¬ 
pleasure  of  the  imperial  government,  and  prevent  such  occurrences  in  the 
future 

For  your  satisfaction,  I  state  that  a  new  consul  has  been  appointed  at 
Trinidad,  and  that  he  is  now  on  his  way  to  that  island. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


Mr.  Bernard  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 

Trinidad,  August  *1,  1861. 

Sir:  I  beg  to  inform  you  that  on  the  30th  ultimo  a  steam  sloop-of-war 
(Semmes  commander)  carrying  a  secession  flag,  five  guns,  some  of  a  large 
calibre,  and  a  crew  of  from  120  to  150  men,  sailed  boldly  in  our  harbor  and 
reported  herself  to  the  authorities  of  this  island  as  being  on  a  cruise.  She 
was  last  from  Puerto  Cabello;  and  since  she  succeeded  in  getting  out  of 
the  Mississippi  river  she  has  already  captured  no  less  than  eleven  American 
vessels.  I  have  ascertained  the  names  of  some  of  them,  viz:  the  Joseph 
Maxwell,  Abe  Bradford,  Minnie  Miller,  West  Wind,  of  Westerly,  with  a 


138 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


cargo  of  sugar  from  Havana,  and  Golden  Rocket,  which  was  burnt  by  her 
off  the  coast  of  Cuba. 

The  Sumter  landed  eight  of  her  prisoners  here  in  a  destitute  condition; 
but  a  contribution  has  been  raised  here  for  their  benefit,  sufficient  to  supply 
their  immediate  wants,  and  I  will  take  care  that  they  are  provided  for  till 
an  opportunity  offers  to  ship  them  to  the  States. 

The  Sumter  remained  here  till  the  5th  instant,  and  was  allowed  to  supply 
herself  with  coals  and  other  necessary  outfits.  The  British  flag  was  hoisted 
on  the  government  flag-staff  for  her  arrival,  and  the  officers  of  the  British 
war  vessel  “  Cadmus”  appeared  to  be  on  amicable  terms  with  those  of  the 
Sumter.  The  merchant  who  supplied  the  Sumter  with  coals  did  it  with 
the  consent  and  approval  of  our  attorney  general. 

Being  a  loyal  American,  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  send  you  these  informa¬ 
tions,  as  there  has  been  no  consul  of  our  nation  in  this  island  for  many 
months. 

*****  * 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

I  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

FRANCIS  BERNARD. 

The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


Mr.  Seivard  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  85.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  10,  1861. 

Sir:  I  transmit  a  copy  of  an  intercepted  letter  of  the  30th  of  July  last, 
from  John  P.  Baldwin,  of  Richmond,  Virginia,  to  Henry  Adderley,  at  Nassau, 
New  Providence,  relative  to  the  shipment  of  arms  and  powder  from  that 
place  for  the  use  of  the  insurgents  in  this  country.  The  existing  British 
statute  for  the  prevention  of  armed  expeditions  against  countries  at  peace 
with  Great  Britain  is  understood  to  be  similar  to  our  act  of  Congress  of  the 
5th  of  April,  1818.  Proceedings  like  that  referred  to  in  the  letter  of  Bald¬ 
win,  however,  afford  us  special  reason  to  expect  legislation  on  the  part  of 
the  British  government  of  the  character  of  our  act  of  1838,  referred  to  in  my 
instruction  to  you  of  the  7th  instant,  numbered  83.  It  may  be,  however,  that 
the  British  executive  government  now  has  the  power  to  prevent  the  exporta¬ 
tion  of  contraband  of  war  from  British  colonies  near  the  United  States  for 
the  use  of  the  insurgents  in  the  south.  Should  this  be  the  fact,  you  will 
bring  the  subject  to  the  attention  of  Lord  Russell,  and  request  that  proper 
instructions  in  regard  to  it  may  be  given  to  the  colonial  authorities. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  F.  Adams,  Esq. 


Mr.  Baldwin  to  Mr.  Adderley. 

Richmond,  Virginia ,  July  30,  1861. 

My  Dear  Adderley  :  The  secretary  of  the  navy  of  the  Confederate  States  of 
America  has  ordered  from  England,  to  be  shipped  to  Nassau,  a  quantity  of 
arms  and  powder.  I  have  recommended  them  to  be  consigned  to  you,  and 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


139 


I  have  to  ask  of  you,  as  a  favor  to  me,  to  take  good  care  of  them.  I  will  be 
with  you  soon,  and  will  expect  your  aid  in  transhipping  the  same. 

I  must  request  you  to  regard  this  as  a  confidential  communication,  and 
will  explain  the  reasons  when  we  meet.  You  need  not  write  me  at  all  on 
the  subject. 

Hoping  soon  to  see  you,  I  remain  your  friend, 

JNO.  P.  BALDWIN". 


Henry  Adderley,  Esq., 

Nassau,  N.  P.,  Bahamas. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  86.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  11,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatch  of  August  23d  has  been  received. 

The  inefficiency  of  the  British  laws  to  prevent  violations  of  our  rights  is 
deeply  to  be  regretted.  We  shall  necessarily  be  obliged  to  exercise  vigi¬ 
lance  in  detecting  the  unlawful  character  and  objects  of  British  vessels  ap¬ 
proaching  our  coasts,  which  will  not  be  pleasant  to  the  government  whose 
flag  they  will  be  perverting  to  such  unfriendly  uses. 

1  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  dec.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract  ] 

No.  44.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  September  14,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  now  have  the  honor  to  transmit  copies  of  two  notes  received  yes¬ 
terday  from  Lord  Russell,  in  answer  to  my  notes  of  the  3d  of  September, 
transmitting  to  him  the  bag  of  Mr.  Bunch.  It  appears  from  one  of  them 
that  Mr.  Bunch  has  been  acting  under  secret  instructions,  which  are  only 
now  acknowledged  because  they  have  come  to  light,  and  that  his  granting 
a  safe  conduct  to  an  emissary  of  secession,  charged  with  treasonable  papers, 
is  no  objection  to  his  neutral  character  in  the  eyes  of  his  employers.  With 
regard  to  the  question  presented  in  the  other  note,  it  is  satisfactory  to  me, 
at  least  in  so  far  as  it  devolves  all  responsibility  for  the  further  treatment 
of  the  question  into  more  capable  hands.  I  transmit  also  a  copy  of  my  reply. 

v|y 

^  ^  (  «  /|n 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  G. 


Foreign  Office,  September  9,  1861. 

Sir:  I  received,  with  some  surprise,  from  Lord  Lyons  an  intimation  that 
a  sealed  bag.  directed  by  one  of  her  Majesty’s  consuls  to  her  Majesty’s  sec¬ 
retary  of  state,  had  been  seized  and  detained  by  order  of  the  Secretary  of 
State  of  the  United  States. 


140 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


It  seems  to  have  been  suspected  that  her  Majesty’s  consul  had  inserted 
in  his  official  bag,  and  covered  with  his  official  seal,  the  correspondence  of 
the  enemies  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  now  engaged  in  open 
hostilities  against  them. 

Had  her  Majesty’s  consul  so  acted  he  would  have,  no  doubt,  been  guilty 
of  a  grave  breach  of  his  duty  both  towards  his  own  government  and  that  of 
the  United  States;  but  I  am  happy  to  say  there  does  not  appear,  on  opening 
the  bag  at  the  foreign  office,  to  be  any  ground  for  such  a  suspicion. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  were  advised  that  the  suspension  of  the  con¬ 
veyance  by  post  of  letters  from  British  subjects  between  the  northern  and 
the  southern  States,  was  a  contravention  of  the  treaty  on  this  subject  con¬ 
tracted  by  the  two  governments.  Her  Majesty’s  government  have  been  un¬ 
willing  to  press  this  view  on  the  United  States;  but  this  stoppage  of  the 
post  has  occasioned  great  inconvenience  to  individuals,  and  I  enclose  a  copy 
of  a  note  from  Mr.  Bunch  to  the  under  secretary  of  foreign  affairs,  showing 
the  mode  in  which  he  has  endeavored  to  palliate  the  evil  by  enclosing  pri¬ 
vate  letters  in  his  consular  bag. 

I  shall  address  any  further  communication  I  may  have  to  make  on  this 
subject  to  Lord  Lyons. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Charleston,  August  5,  1861. 

Mr.  Bunch  presents  his  compliments  to  her  Majesty’s  under  secretary  of 
state  for  foreign  affairs,  and  takes  leave  to  enclose  to  him  herewith  certain 
letters  which  are  intended  for  the  post. 

They  are  principally  letters  of  servants,  governesses,  &c.,  (British  sub¬ 
jects,)  which,  owing  to  the  discontinuance  of  the  post,  they  are  unable  to 
send  in  any  other  way.  Some  also  contain  dividends,  the  property  of  British 
subjects,  which  they  could  scarcely  receive  without  Mr.  Bunch’s  interven¬ 
tion.  \ 

Mr.  Bunch  hopes  that  there  is  no  irregularity  in  this  proceeding.  No 
expense  of  postage  is  incurred  by  the  foreign  office,  as  the  bag  in  which 
the  letters  are  contained  goes  by  a  private  hand  to  Liverpool. 

Her  Majesty’s  Under  Secretary  of  State 

For  Foreign  Affairs. 


Foreign  Office,  September  9,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs,  has  received  a  communication  from  Mr.  Adams,  envoy  extraordinary 
and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at  this  court,  dated  the 
3d  instant,  giving  some  information  regarding  the  conduct  of  Mr.  Bunch, 
her  Majesty’s  consul  at  Charleston,  in  the  United  States,  and  requesting,  on 
the  part  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  that  Mr.  Bunch  may  at 
once  be  removed  from  his  office. 

The  undersigned  will,  without  hesitation,  state  to  Mr.  Adams  that  in  pur¬ 
suance  of  an  agreement  between  the  British  and  French  governments,  Mr. 
Bunch  was  instructed  to  communicate  to  the  persons  exercising  authority 
in  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  the  desire  of  those  governments,  that  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


141 


second,  third,  and  fourth  articles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  should  be 
observed  by  those  States  in  the  prosecution  of  the  hostilities  in  which  they 
were  engaged.  Mr.  Adams  will  observe  that  the  commerce  of  Great  Britain 
and  France  is  deeply  interested  in  the  maintenance  of  the  articles  provid¬ 
ing  that  the  flag  covers  the  goods,  and  that  the  goods  of  a  neutral  taken  on 
board  a  belligerent  ship  are  not  liable  to  condemnation. 

Mr.  Bunch,  therefore,  in  what  he  has  done  in  this  matter,  has  acted  in 
obedience  to  the  instructions  of  his  government,  who  accept  the  responsi¬ 
bility  of  his  proceedings  so  far  as  they  are  known  to  the  foreign  depart¬ 
ment,  and  who  cannot  remove  him  from  his  office  for  having  obeyed  his 
instructions. 

But  when  it  is  stated  in  a  letter  from  some  person  not  named,  that  the 
first  step  to  the  recognition  of  the  southern  States  by  Great  Britain  has 
been  taken,  the  undersigned  has  to  decline  all  responsibility  for  such  state¬ 
ment. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  have  already  recognized  the  belligerent  charac¬ 
ter  of  the  southern  States,  and  they  will  continue  to  consider  them  as  bellig¬ 
erents.  But  her  Majesty’s  government  have  not  recognized,  and  are  not 
prepared  to  recognize  the  so-called  Confederate  States  as  a  separate  and 
independent  State. 

The  undersigned  requests  Mr.  Adams  to  accept  the  assurance  of  his 
highest  consideration. 

RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dec .,  &c.,  &c. 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  September  13,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
United  States,  has  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  reception  this  day  of  two 
notes  from  the  right  honorable  Earl  Russel,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary 
of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  both  dated  the  9th  of  September,  and  both  in 
reply  to  notes  addressed  to  his  lordship  by  the  undersigned  on  the  3d  instant, 
touching  the  case  of  Mr.  Bunch,  her  Majesty’s  consul  at  Charleston,  and  the 
mode  of  transmission  of  his  despatches.  The  undersigned  has  the  honor  to 
inform  his  lordship  that  copies  of  these  notes  will  be  transmitted  by  the  next 
steamer  for  the  consideration  ol*  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

The  undersigned  requests  Earl  Russell  to  accept  the  assurance  of  his 
highest  consideration. 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Right  Honorable  Earl  Russell,  dec.,  &c.,  dec. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  88.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  14,  18G1. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  30  (No.  34)  has  just  been  received.  Your 
note  to  Lord  John  Russell,  which  accompanies  it,  is  approved.  My  despatch 
to  you,  (No.  83,)  under  the  date  of  the  7th  instant,  will  have  reached  you  before 
this  communication  can  arrive.  You  will  have  learned  from  that  paper  that 
your  course,  as  now  made  known  to  me,  was  anticipated  by  the  President, 


142 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


and  that  he  had  already  directed  that  the  negotiation  for  our  adhesion  to  the 
declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  should  be  suspended. 

It  is  due  to  the  British  government  to  say  that  the  letter  of  Lord  John 
Russell  to  Mr.  Edwardes,  upon  Dominican  affairs,  to  which  you  refer,  and  a 
copy  of  which  you  enclose,  was  read  to  me  by  Lord  Lyons,  pursuant  to 
instructions  from  Lord  Russell. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  Ac. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  89.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  14,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  30  (No.  35)  has  been  received.  While  I 
regret  with  you  that  the  administration  of  the  laws  of  Great  Britain  is  such 
as  to  render  comparatively  ineffectual  your  efforts  to  defeat  there  the  designs 
of  parties  in  that  country  injurious  to  the  United  States,  I  have  great  plea¬ 
sure  in  saying  that  the  information  we  receive  from  you  concerning  them  is 
often  very  valuable,  and  enables  us  to  put  our  own  authorities  here  in  a  way 
of  vigilant  surveillance  which  promises  good  results. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  Ac.,  Ac.,  Ac. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


[Confidential.] 


No.  95.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  25,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  1  (No.  39)  has  just  been  received. 
Your  review  of  the  correspondence  between  us  and  the  British  government 
since  you  entered  upon  your  mission  is  quite  satisfactory,  and  we  have  every 
reason  to  be  content  with  the  details  as  with  the  results. 

The  time  which  has  elapsed  since  the  insurgents  made  their  first  unnatural 
appeal  to  the  sympathies  and  aid  of  foreign  powers  for  the  overthrow  of  our 
government  has  been  sufficient  to  draw  out  all  their  strength  and  exhaust 
in  some  measure  their  passion.  On  the  other  hand,  the  strength  of  the 
Union  manifests  itself  with  constant  augmentation.  Every  day  brings  two 
thousand  men  and  some  new  ship-of-war  into  activity,  and  the  insurrection, 
already,  is  finding  itself  obliged  to  provide  for  a  long  and  merely  defensive 
contest,  desolating  the  States  which  should  constitute  the  new  confederacy, 
while  the  loyal  States  remain  prosperous  and  happy. 

I  think  that  Great  Britain  will  soon  be  able  to  see,  what  she  has  hitherto 
been  unwilling  to  see,  that,  if  she,  like  ourselves,  seeks  peace  and  prosperity 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


143 


on  this  continent,  she  can  most  effectually  contribute  to  their  restoration  by 
manifesting  her  wishes  for  the  success  of  this  government  in  suppressing 
the  insurrection  as  speedily  as  possible. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  Ac.,  Ac .,  Ac. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  97.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  25,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  6,  No.  38,  has  been  received. 

Our  naval  force  is  rapidly  increasing,  and  the  command  of  it  has  recently 
been  reorganized.  We  are  preparing  for  some  vigorous  demonstrations  on 
the  coast,  to  begin  in  about  ten  days;  and  I  trust,  therefore,  that  we  shall 
be  able  to  defeat  on  this  side  the  enterprises  of  the  insurgents  which  we 
have  been  unable  to  prevent  on  the  other. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  vour  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  Ac.,  Ac .,  Ac. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  50.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  September  28,  1861. 

Pi  '1'  't'  't'  'if  'i'  -A* 

^  jp  ■ 

During  my  stay  at  Abergeldie  I  alluded  to  instructions  received  at  the 
moment  of  my  leaving  London,  in  your  despatch,  No.  84,  of  the  10th  of 
September,  directing  me  to  make  a  complaint  of  the  authorities  at  Trinidad 
for  their  mode  of  reception  of  the  insurgent  privateer,  the  Sumter.  1  read 
to  him  the  copy  of  the  letter  of  Mr.  Bernard,  which  was  enclosed.  But  I 
contented  myself  with  only  mentioning  the  subject,  as  I  said  I  supposed  I 
should  be  obliged  to  present  the  case  hereafter,  in  a  more  formal  way,  in 
writing. 

His  lordship  expressed  a  wish  that  I  should  take  that  course.  The  matter 
had  already  come  before  the  colonial  office,  and  it  had  been  referred  to  the 
law  officers  of  the  crown,  to  report  what  was  the  action  proper  to  be  taken 
in  similar  cases. 

iLf  -if  ^Lf  4* 

'T*  *T*  'T*  'T*  'P  'T*  *1" 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  1).  C. 


114 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward , 

No.  52.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  September  28,  1861. 

Sir:  I  am  much  gratified  to  perceive,  by  the  terms  of  your  despatch,  No, 
83,  dated  the  7th  of  this  mouth,  a  substantial  ratification  of  the  position 
taken  by  me  in  regard  to  Lord  Russell’s  note  of  the  19th  of  August, 
and  to  the  declaration  which  he  proposed  to  append  to  the  convention  con¬ 
cerning  neutral  rights.  I  find  in  it,  too,  a  general  coincidence  in  the  argu¬ 
ment  presented  by  me  in  my  reply  to  his  lordship  on  the  23d  of  August,  a 
copy  of  which  could  not  have  reached  the  department  down  to  the  latest 
dates  yet  received.  There  are  some  views  offered,  however,  in  my  note, 
which  are  not  touched  upon  in  that  despatch.  1  am,  therefore,  not  as  yet 
fully  certain  whether,  as  a  whole,  it  has  met  with  the  approbation  of  the 
President.  For  this  reason  I  decided  not  to  bold  communication  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  with  Lord  Russell,  during  the  time  of  my  late  stay  under  his  roof,  but 
rather  to  wait  until  after  the  arrival  of  the  next  despatches  from  the  depart¬ 
ment,  which  will  probably  bring  a  final  review  of  the  negotiation,  as  it 
appears,  after  an  examination  of  all  the  papers  that  belong  to  it.  I  shall 
then  be  in  a  position  to  judge  of  the  propriety  of  any  further  action  which 
it  may  be  advisable  to  pursue.  His  lordship  informed  me,  on  my  taking 
leave  of  him,  that  he  exDected  to  return  to  London  bv  the  14th  of  next 
month,  after  which  1  anticipate  no  delay,  like  the  late  one,  in  the  transaction 
of  important  business. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  "William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  53.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  October  4,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  to  acknowledge  the  reception  of  despatches  from  the  depart¬ 
ment,  numbered  from  85  to  89,  both  inclusive. 

The  despatch,  No.  85,  dated  the  10th  of  September,  like  its  immediate  pre¬ 
decessor,  No.  84,  of  the  same  date,  though  received  here  a  week  earlier, 
relates  to  cases  of  violation  of  neutrality  in  the  British  islands  in  the  West 
Indies.  I  have  now  the  honor  to  forward  copies  of  two  notes  addressed  by 
me  to  Lord  Russell,  one  of  the  30th  of  September,  and  the  other  of  the  fol¬ 
lowing  day,  touching  these  questions. 

*  "  *  *  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington,  D.  C. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


145 


Mr.  Adams  to  Earl  Russell. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  September  30,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the 
United  States,  regrets  to  be  obliged  to  inform  the  right  honorable  Earl  Rus¬ 
sell,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  that  he  has 
been  instructed  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  prefer  a  complaint 
against  the  authorities  of  the  island  of  Trinidad  for  a  violation  of  her  Ma- 
jesty’s  proclamation  of  neutrality,  by  giving  aid  and  encouragement  to  the 
insurgents  of  the  United  States.  It  appears  by  an  extract  from  a  letter  re¬ 
ceived  at  the  Department  of  State  from  a  gentleman  believed  to  be  worthy 
of  credit,  a  resident  of  Trinidad,  Mr.  Francis  Bernard,  a  copy  of  which  is 
submitted  herewith,  that  a  steam  vessel,  known  as  an  armed  insurgent 
privateer,  called  the  Sumter,  was  received  on  the  30th  of  July  last  at  that 
port,  and  was  permitted  to  remain  for  six  days,  during  which  time  she  was 
not  only  furnished  with  all  necessary  supplies  for  the  continuance  of  her 
cruise,  under  the  sanction  of  the  attorney  general,  but  that  her  Majesty’s 
flag  was  actually  hoisted  on  the  government  flag-staff  in  acknowledgment  of 
her  arrival. 

The  undersigned  has  been  directed  by  his  government  to  bring  this- extra¬ 
ordinary  proceeding  to  the  attention  of  Lord  Russell,  and,  in  case  it  shall 
not  be  satisfactorily  explained,  to  ask  for  the  adoption  of  such  measures  as 
shall  insure,  on  the  part  of  the  authorities  of  the  island,  the  prevention  of 
all  occurrences  of  the  kind  during  the  continuance  of  the  difficulties  in 
America. 

The  undersigned  deems  it  proper  to  add,  in  explanation  of  the  absence  of 
any  official  representation  from  Trinidad  to  substantiate  the  present  com¬ 
plaint,  that  there  was  no  consul  of  the  United  States  there  at  the  time  of  the 
arrival  of  the  vessel.  The  undersigned  had  the  honor,  a  few  days  since,  to 
apprise  Lord  Russell  of  the  fact  that  this  deficiency  had  been  since  supplied, 
by  preferring  an  application  for  her  Majesty’s  exequator  for  a  new  consul, 
who  is  already  on  his  way  to  occupy  his  post. 

The  undersigned  begs  to  renew  to  Earl  Russell  the  assurances  of  his 
highest  consideration. 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

The  Right  Hon.  Earl  Russell,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Earl  Russell. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London,  October  1,  1861. 

My  Lord:  It  is  with  much  regret  that  I  find  myself  receiving,  at  every 
fresh  arrival  from  the  United  States,  instructions  from  my  government  to 
make  representations  to  your  lordship  concerning  alleged  violations  of  her 
Majesty’s  proclamation  of  neutrality,  committed  by  British  subjects  through 
the  channel  of  the  colonies  situated  near  the  United  States.  I  have  the 
honor  now  to  submit  to  your  lordship’s  consideration  the  copy  of  an  inter¬ 
cepted  letter  from  a  person  named  John  P.  Baldwin,  living  at  Richmond,  in 
Virginia,  in  the  service  of  the  insurgents,  addressed  to  Henry  Adderley, 
esquire,  of  Nassau,  New  Providence.  It  appears  by  this  letter  that  Nassau 
has  been  made,  to  some  extent,  an  entrepot  for  the  transmission  of  articles 

10 


146 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


contraband  of  war  from  Great  Britain  to  the  ports  held  by  the  insurgents. 
It  would  be  a  great  source  of  satisfaction  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States  to  learn  that  her  Majesty’s  government  felt  itself  clothed  with  the 
necessary  power  to  prevent  the  exportation  of  such  contraband  from  the 
colonies  for  the  use  of  the  insurgents,  and  that  it  would  furnish  the  neces¬ 
sary  instructions  to  the  local  authorities  to  attain  that  end. 

I  pray  your  lordship  to  accept  the  assurances  of  the  highest  consideration, 
with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  lordship’s  most  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 

The  Right  Hon.  Earl  Russell,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Adams  to  Mr.  Seivard. 


No.  58.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

London ,  October  11,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  Lord  Russell’s  note  to  me  of 
the  4th  instant,  in  reply  to  my  representation  of  the  conduct  of  the  author¬ 
ities  of  the  island  of  Trinidad,  made  under  instructions  from  the  department. 

It  will  appear  from  this  that  the  governor  of  Trinidad,  by  hoisting  the 
British  flag  on  the  government  flag-staff,  probably  desired  to  signify  to  the 
officers  of  the  Sumter,  on  their  arrival,  the  neutral  character  of  the  island, 
but  that  he  in  the  meantime  forgot  that  the  act  is  susceptible  of  a  very 
different  construction  in  the  popular  mind. 

V*/  x  '>  x|/ 

^  ^  'f' 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHARLES  FRANCIS  ADAMS. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 


Earl  Russell  to  Mr.  Adams. 

Foreign  Office,  October  4,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign 
affairs,  has  had  the  honor  to  receive  a  complaint  from  Mr.  Adams,  envoy 
extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at  this 
court,  against  the  authorities  of  the  island  of  Trinidad  for  a  violation  of  her 
Majesty’s  proclamation  of  neutrality,  by  giving  aid  and  encouragement  to 
the  insurgents  of  the  United  States. 

It  appears,  from  the  accounts  received  at  the  colonial  office  and  at  the 
admiralty,  that  a  vessel  bearing  a  secession  flag  entered  the  port  of  Trinidad 
on  the  30th  of  July  last. 

Captain  Hillyar,  of  her  Majesty’s  ship  “  Cadmus,”  having  sent  a  boat  to 
ascertain  her  nationality,  the  commanding  officer  showed  a  commission 
signed  by  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis,  calling  himself  the  President  of  the  so-styled 
Confederate  States. 

The  “  Sumter,”  which  was  the  vessel  in  question,  was  allowed  to  stay  six 
days  at  Trinidad,  and  to  supply  herself  with  coals  and  provisions,  and  the 
attorney  general  of  the  island  perceived  no  illegality  in  these  proceedings. 

The  law  officers  of  the  crown  have  reported  that  the  conduct  of  the  governor 
was  in  conformity  to  her  Majesty’s  proclamation. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


147 


No  mention  is  made  by  the  governor  of  his  hoisting  the  British  flag  on 
the  government  flag-staff;  and  if  he  did  so,  it  was  probably  in  order  to  show 
the  national  character  of  the  island,  and  not  in  acknowledgment  of  the 
arrival  of  the  “  Sumter.” 

There  does  not  appear,  therefore,  any  reason  to  believe  that  her  Majesty’s 
proclamation  of  neutrality  has  been  violated  by  the  governor  of  Trinidad, 
or  by  the  commanding  officer  of  her  Majesty’s  ship  “  Cadmus.” 

The  undersigned  requests  Mr.  Adams  to  accept  the  assurance  of  his 
highest  consideration. 

RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c .,  ebc.,  &c. 


Mr  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  108.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  October  22,  1861. 

Sir  :  The  receipt  of  your  despatch  of  the  14th  of  September  (No.  44)  has 
been  already  acknowledged. 

It  was  accompanied  by  Earl  Russell’s  reply  to  the  note  which,  in  execution 
of  my  instructions,  you  addressed  to  him  on  the  subject  of  the  detention  of 
a  bearer  of  despatches  sent  by  Robert  Bunch,  her  Majesty’s  consul  at 
Charleston,  and  the  substitution  by  me  of  another  person  to  convey  his  con¬ 
sular  bag  to  Great  Britain. 

Earl  Russell  says,  in  his  note,  that  if  it  had  been  true  (as  we  apprehended) 
that  Mr.  Bunch  had  inserted  into  his  official  bag  and  covered  with  his  official 
seal  the  correspondence  of  the  enemies  of  this  government  in  the  United 
States,  he  would  have  been  guilty  of  a  grave  breach  of  his  duty  towards  his 
own  government  and  that  of  the  United  States.  Earl  Russell  says  also,  that 
on  the  opening  of  the  bag  at  the  foreign  office  (in  London)  no  ground  for 
that  suspicion  was  revealed. 

These  declarations,  made  with  unquestioned  candor  and  freedom,  are 
entirely  satisfactory  upon  the  main  point  involved  in  your  note.  It  is  there¬ 
fore  a  pleasant  duty  for  me  to  instruct  you  to  reply  to  Earl  Russell  that  this 
government  regrets  the  interruption  of  the  passage  of  the  consular 
despatches,  which  has  occurred  in  consequence  of  a  mistaken  suspicion  that 
the  agent  who  transmitted  them  was  abusing  the  confidence  of  the  two 
governments.  I  sincerely  hope  that  no  serious  inconvenience  resulted  from 
the  delay. 

Earl  Russell,  after  making  the  explanations  which  I  have  quoted,  proceeds 
to  remark  that  her  Majesty’s  government  was  advised  that  the  suspicion  of 
the  conveyance  by  post  of  letters  from  British  subjects  between  the  northern 
States  and  the  southern  States  was  in  contravention  of  the  treaty  on  this 
subject  contracted  between  the  two  governments  ;  that  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment  had  been,  nevertheless,  unwilling  to  press  this  view  on  the  United 
States  ;  but  that  this  stoppage  of  the  post  has  occasioned  great  inconvenience 
to  individuals.  Ilis  lordship  then  submits  a  copy  of  a  note  which  Mr.  Bunch 
had  written  to  the  under  secretary  of  state,  showing  the  mode  in  which  he 
had  endeavored  to  palliate  the  evil  by  enclosing  private  letters  in  his  official 
bag.  Ilis  lordship  then  dismisses  the  subject,  saying  that  he  shall  address 
any  further  communication  he  may  have  to  make  thereon,  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Mr.  Bunch,  in  his  note,  states  that  he  encloses  in  the  bag,  to  the  under 
secretary’s  address,  certain  letters  which  are  intended  for  the  post,  and  that 
they  are  principally  letters  of  servants,  governesses,  See.,  British  subjects, 


148 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


which,  owing  to  the  discontinuance  of  the  post,  they  are  unable  to  send  in 
any  other  way  ;  also,  that  some  of  the  letters  contain  dividends,  the  property 
of  British  subjects,  which  they  could  scarcely  receive  without  Mr.  Bunch’s 
intervention.  He  adds  that  he  hopes  that  there  is  no  irregularity  in  this 
proceeding,  since  no  expense  of  postage  is  incurred,  because  the  bag  in 
which  the  letters  are  contained  goes  by  a  private  hand  to  Liverpool.  I  read 
this  note  under  the  light  thrown  upon  it  by  the  explanations  of  Earl  Russell, 
which  show  that  the  whole  correspondence  contained  in  the  bag  was 
innocent. 

In  these  circumstances,  what  remains  open  to  special  exception  in  Mr. 
Bunch’s  proceeding  is,  his  substitution  of  his  consular  bag  and  official  seal 
for  the  mail  bag  and  mail  locks  of  the  United  States,  and  of  his  own  mail 
carrier  for  the  mail  carriers  of  the  United  States. 

The  proceeding  of  the  consul  in  these  respects,  certainly  is  not  defensible 
on  any  ground  of  treaty  or  international  law  ;  nor  does  Earl  Russell  in  any 
way  imply  that  he  deems  it  is  so.  The  proceeding  however  was  practically 
harmless,  and  it  is  not  likely  to  be  repeated. 

I  confess  to  the  fact  of  the  interruption  of  the  post,  and  also  that  it  works 
literally  a  non-fulfilment  of  a  treaty  stipulation.  I  deplore  it  for  that  reason, 
as  well  as  for  the  public  and  private  injuries  that  it  occasions,  not  only 
abroad  but  at  home.  But  the  British  government  is  well  aware  that  the 
interruption  has  occurred,  not  through  the  deliberate  or  even  voluntary  con¬ 
sent  of  the  government,  but  through  the  sudden  violence  of  an  insurrection 
which  has  not  only  obstructed  the  mails,  but  which  even  seeks  to  overthrow 
not  only  the  treaty  in  question,  but  even  the  government  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Union  itself,  which  constitutes  them  one  treaty-making  and 
treaty-observing  nation.  Suppression  of  the  correspondence  between  parties 
in  that  nation  with  each  other  in  this  country  and  in  foreign  countries  is  a 
measure  which  is  essential  to  the  suppression  of  the  insurrection  itself,  and 
to  a  complete  restoration  of  the  functions  of  the  government  throughout 
the  Union.  1  feel  sure  that  the  magnanimity  of  the  British  government  may 
be  relied  upon  not  to  complain,  at  one  and  the  same  time,  of  the  breach  of 
our  international  postal  treaty  under,  such  circumstances,  and  of  our  resort 
to  a  measure  which  is  indispensable  to  complete  our  ability  to  fulfil  it. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD, 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  109.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  October  23,  1861. 

Sir:  I  recur  once  more  to  your  despatch  of  September  14,  No.  44.  On 
the  3d  of  that  month  you  addressed  a  note  to  Earl  Russell,  in  which  you 
informed  him,  by  my  direction,  that  from  the  contents  of  the  many  letters 
found  in  the  possession  of  Mr.  Robert  Mure,  bearer  of  despatches  to  the 
government  of  Great  Britain,  but  detained  at  New  York  as  an  agent  of  the 
enemies  of  the  United  States,  the  following  statement  is  made  of  the  action 
of  Mr.  Bunch  in  Charleston.  “  Mr.  Bunch,  on  oath  of  secrecy,  communicated 
to  me  also  that  the  first  step  to  recognition  was  taken;  that  he  and  Mr. 
Belli gny  together  sent  Mr.  Trescot  to  Richmond  yesterday  to  ask  Jeff. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


149 


Davis,  President,  to 


the  treaty  of 


to 


tlie  neutral  flag1 


covering1  neutral  goods  to  be  respected.  This  is  the  first  step  of  direct 
treating  with  our  government.  So  prepare  for  active  business  by  first  of 
January.” 

You  submitted  this  information  to  her  Majesty’s  government  with  a 
request  on  the  part  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  that,  if  it  should 
be  found  to  be  correct,  Mr.  Bunch  might  be  at  once  removed  from  his  office. 
And  you  further  added,  by  my  direction,  that  the  President  would  cheerfully 
accord  an  exequator  to  any  person  who  might  be  appointed  to  succeed  Mr. 
Bunch,  who  would  faithfully  perform  his  functions  without  injury  to  the 
rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States. 

There  is  appended  to  your  despatch  now  before  me  the  written  answer  of 
the  Earl  Russell  to  your  note  thus  recited. 

His  lordship  answers  that  he  will,  without  hesitation,  state  to  Mr.  Adams 
that,  in  pursuance  of  an  agreement  between  the  British  and  French  govern¬ 
ments,  Mr.  Bunch  was  instructed  to  communicate  to  the  persons  excercising 
authority  in  the  so-called  Confederate  States  the  desire  of  those  governments 
that  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  articles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  should 
be  observed  by  those  States  in  the  prosecution  of  the  hostilities  in  which 
they  were  engaged.  His  lordship  then  asked  you  to  observe  that  the  com¬ 
merce  of  Great  Britain  and  France  is  deeply  interested  in  the  maintenance 
of  the  articles  providing  that  the  flag  covers  the  goods,  and  that  the  goods 
of  a  neutral  taken  on  board  a  belligerent  ship  are  not  liable  to  confiscation. 
Earl  Russell  thereupon  proceeds  to  say  that  Mr.  Bunch,  in  what  he  has  done 
in  this  matter,  has  acted  in  obedience  to  the  instructions  of  his  government, 
who  accept  the  responsibility  of  his  proceedings,  so  far  as  they  are  known 
to  the  foreign  department,  and  who  cannot  therefore  remove  him  from  his 
office  for  having  obeyed  their  instructions.  But  his  lordship  adds  that, 
when  it  is  stated  in  a  letter  from  some  person  not  named  that  the  first  step 
to  the  recognition  of  the  southern  States  by  Great  Britain  has  been  taken, 
he,  Earl  Russell,  begs  to  decline  all  responsibility  for  such  statement;  and 
he  remarks  on  this  branch  of  the  subject  that  her  Majesty’s  government 
have  already  recognized  the  belligerent  character  of  the  southern  States, 
and  the}7  will  continue  to  consider  them  as  belligerents,  but  that  her 
Majesty’s  government  have  not  recognized,  and  are  not  prepared  to  recog¬ 
nize,  the  so-called  Confederate  States  as  a  separate  and  independent  State. 

You  are  instructed  to  reply  to  this  note  of  her  Majesty’s  principal  secre¬ 
tary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs: 

First.  That  her  Majesty’s  government  having  avowed  that  Mr.  Bunch 
acted  under  their  instructions,  so  far  as  his  conduct  is  known  to  the  foreign 
department,  and  that  government  having  avowed  their  responsibility  for 
his  proceedings  in  that  extent,  it  is  admitted  that,  so  far  as  that  portion  of 
the  subject  is  concerned,  the  matter  is  to  be  settled  directly  with  her 
Majesty’s  government. 

Secondly.  That  a  law  of  the  United  States  forbids  any  person  not  specially 
appointed  or  duly  authorized  or  recognized  by  the  President,  whether  citi¬ 
zen  or  denizen,  privileged  or  unprivileged,  from  counselling,  advising,  aiding, 
or  assisting  in  any  political  correspondence  with  the  government  of  any 
foreign  state  whatever,  with  an  intent  to  influence  the  measures  of  any 
foreign  government,  or  of  any  officer  or  agent  thereof,  in  relation  to  any 
disputes  or  controversies  with  the  United  States,  or  to  defeat  the  measures 
of  the  government.  The  proceeding  of  Mr.  Bunch  was  clearly  and  distinctly 
in  violation  of  this  positive  law. 

Thirdly.  This  government  finds  no  sufficient  justification  or  excuse  for 
the  proceeding  of  Mr.  Bunch,  thus  shown  to  be  in  violation  of  the  law  of 
the  United  States,  in  the  consideration  that  Great  Britain  was  deeply 


150 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


interested  in  the  maintenance  of  the  articles  which  provide  that  the  flag 
covers  the  goods,  and  that  the  goods  of  a  neutral  taken  on  board  a  belligerent 
ship  are  not  liable  to  confiscation. 

It  is  enough  to  say  on  this  subject  that,  in  our  view,  the  proper  agents  of  the 
British  government,  to  make  known  that  interest  here,  are  the  diplomatic, 
not  the  consular  agents  of  her  Majesty;  and  that  the  only  authority  in  this 
country  to  which  any  diplomatic  communication  whatever  can  be  made  is 
the  government  of  the  United  States  itself. 

Still  less  can  the  United  States  admit  that  communication  by  Mr.  Bunch, 
while  exercising  consular  privileges  with  which  he  was  clothed  by  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  United  States,  with  insurgents  in  arms  against  the  federal 
government,  is  justified  by  the  declaration  of  the  British  ministry  that  they 
have  already  recognized  the  belligerent  character  of  the  insurgents,  and 
that  they  will  continue  to  consider  them  as  belligerents.  It  is  understood 
to  be  true  that  her  Majesty’s  government  have  heretofore  issued  a  royal 
proclamation  which  they  interpret  as  declaring  that  they  recognize  the 
insurgents  as  a  belligerent.  But  it  is  also  true  that  this  government  has, 
with  equal  decision  and  with  equal  resolution,  announced  to  the  British 
government  that  an}7  such  declaration  made  by  the  British  government  would 
not  be  accepted  as  modifying,  in  the  least  degree,  the  rights  or  powers  of  this 
government,  or  the  obligations  due  to  them  by  Great  Britain  as  a  friendly 
nation.  Still  adhering  to  this  position,  the  government  of  the  United  States 
will  continue  to  pursue,  as  it  has  heretofore  done,  the  counsels  of  prudence, 
and  will  not  suffer  itself  to  be  disturbed  by  excitement.  It  must  revoke  the 
exequatur  of  the  consul,  who  has  not  only  been  the  bearer  of  communica¬ 
tions  between  the  insurgents  and  a  foreign  government,  in  violation  of  our 
laws,  but  has  abused  equally  the  confidence  of  the  two  governments  by 
reporting,  without  the  authority  of  his  government,  and  in  violation  of  their 
own  policy  as  well  as  of  our  national  rights,  that  the  proceeding  in  which 
he  was  engaged  was  in  the  nature  of  a  treaty  with  the  insurgents,  and  the 
first  step  towards  a  recognition  by  Great  Britain  of  their  sovereignty. 
Moreover,  the  conduct  uf  the  person  in  question,  even  while  this  corres¬ 
pondence  has  been  going  on,  as  well  as  before  it  commenced,  has  been  that, 
not  of  a  friend  to  this  government,  or  even  of  a  neutral,  but  of  a  partisan 
of  faction  and  disunion. 

In  reviewing  this  subject  it  would  be  unjust  to  her  Majesty’s  minister 
residing  here,  as  well  as  to  her  Majesty’s  government,  to  omit  to  say  that 
that  minister  has,  in  all  his  proceedings,  carefully  respected  the  sovereignty 
and  the  rights  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  arrangements  which  have 
been  made  by  him,  with  the  approval  of  this  government,  for  communication 
between  the  British  government  and  its  consuls,  through  the  national  vessels 
of  Great  Britain  entering  blockaded  ports  without  carrying  passengers  or 
private  letters,  seems  to  forbid  any  necessity  for  a  recurrence  of  such  proceed¬ 
ings  as  those  which  have  brought  about  these  explanations.  You  will  inform 
the  Earl  Russell  that  the  exequatur  of  Mr.  Bunch  has  been  withdrawn 
because  his  services  as  consul  are  not  agreeable  to  this  government,  and 
that  the  consular  privileges  thus  taken  from  him  will  be  cheerfully  allowed 
to  any  successor  whom  her  Majesty  may  appoint,  against  whom  no  grave 
personal  objections  shall  exist.  It  is  a  source  of  satisfaction  to  the  Presi¬ 
dent  to  reflect  that  the  proceeding  which  I  have  been  considering  occurred 
some  time  ago,  and  that  the  part  of  it  which  was  most  calculated  to  offend, 
and  to  which  exception  is  now  especially  taken,  finds  no  support  in  the 
communication  of  Earl  Russell. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  dc.,  dc.,  dec. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


151 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 


No.  112.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  29,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  October  11,  No.  58,  has  been  received.  It  is  ac¬ 
companied  by  Lord  Russell’s  reply  to  the  note  which  you  addressed  to  him 
by  my  direction,  asking  an  explanation  of  the  conduct  of  the  colonial  au¬ 
thorities  in  Trinidad  on  the  occasion  of  the  entrance  of  the  piratical  vessel 
the  “  Sumter”  into  that  port. 

Lord  Russell  admits  that  the  “  Sumter,”  (an  armed  American  vessel,) 
bearing  an  insurgent  flag,  entered  the  port  of  Trinidad,  and  when  boarded 
and  required  to  show  her  nationality,  her  commanding  officer  showed  no 
legal  authority  from  this  government,  but  a  pretended  commission  from  a 
citizen  of  the  United  States,  notoriously  engaged  in  arms  against  them. 
Notwithstanding  these  facts,  it  is  not  denied  that  the  governor  of  the  island 
hoisted  the  British  flag  on  the  government  flag-staff,  although  it  is  stated 
by  Lord  Russell  that,  if  he  did  so,  it  was  probably  done  in  order  to  show 
the  national  character  of  the  island,  and  not  in  acknowledgment  of  the  arrival 
of  the  “  Sumter.” 

His  lordship,  however,  admits  that  the  “Sumter”  was  allowed  to  remain 
six  days  in  Trinidad,  and  that  during  her  stay  she  was  allowed  to  supply 
herself  with  coals  and  provisions.  The  armament,  the  insurgent  flag,  and 
the  spurious  commission  told  the  governor,  as  they  sufficiently  prove  to  her 
Majesty’s  government,  that  the  “Sumter”  is  and  can  be  nothing  else  than  a 
piratical  vessel.  Her  depredations  on  the  commerce  of  this  country  form  a 
part  of  the  history  of  our  times.  The  British  government  has,  moreover, 
been  directly  informed  by  us  that  the  “  Sumter”  is  a  piratical  craft,  and  that 
the  navigators  and  seamen  on  board  of  her  are  pirates,  punishable  by  the 
laws  of  their  own  country  with  death.  Lord  Russell  informs  us  that  the 
law  officers  of  the  crown  have  nevertheless  reported  that  the  conduct  of  the 
colonial  authorities  of  Trinidad  is  in  conformity  to  her  Majesty’s  proclama¬ 
tion.  Her  Majesty’s  government  dismiss  our  complaint  from  their  considera¬ 
tion. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  becomes  my  duty  to  instruct  you  to  inform  the 
British  government  that  the  President  deeply  regrets  that  Lord  Russell  is 
altogether  unable  to  give  to  our  complaint  a  satisfactory  solution. 

When  it  is  considered  how  important  a  part  commerce  plays  among  the 
interests  of  our  country,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  United  States  cannot  con¬ 
sent  that  pirates  engaged  in  destroying  it  shall  receive  shelter  and  supplies 
in  the  ports  of  friendly  nations.  It  tends  to  the  universal  derangement  of 
commerce  when  piracy  is  anywhere  tolerated,  and  therefore  its  suppression 
is  a  common  interest  of  all  civilized  countries.  But  if  any  one  power  fails 
to  preserve  this  interest,  and  to  act  for  the  common  welfare,  then  it  is  easy 
to  see  that  each  state  must  provide  for  its  own  security  at  whatever  cost, 
and  however  it  may  disturb  the  general  harmony  of  the  commercial  world. 

This  government  will  consider  how  its  safety  may  be  best  secured;  but  it 
cannot  forbear  from  expressing  a  hope  that  her  Majesty’s  ministers,  in  view 
of  the  gravity  of  the  question,  may  deem  the  subject  worthy  of  a  deliberate 
reconsideration. 

I  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  Ac.,  Ac.,  Ac. 


152 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 
[Circular.] 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  4,  1861. 

My  Lord:  I  regret  to  inform  you  that  information  has  reached  this  depart¬ 
ment  that  foreign  vessels-of-war,  which  have  entered  ports  of  States  in  in¬ 
surrection  against  the  government  of  the  United  States,  under  blockade, 
have,  in  some  instances,  carried  passengers,  and  in  others  private  corres, 
pondence.  It  is  presumed  that  such  proceedings  could  not  have  taken  place 
with  the  knowledge  or  approval  of  the  governments  of  foreign  countries. 

With  a  view,  however,  to  prevent  any  misunderstanding  in  future,  it  is 
distinctly  to  be  understood  that  no  foreign  vessel-of-war,  which  may  enter 
or  depart  from  a  blockaded  port  of  the  United  States,  will  carry  any  person 
as  a  passenger,  or  any  correspondence  other  than  that  between  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  country  to  which  the  vessel  may  belong  and  the  diplomatic  and 
consular  agents  of  such  country  at  the  ports  adverted  to. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  offer  to  your  lordship  a  renewed  assurance 
of  my  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

To  the  Right  Honorable  Lord  Lyons,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 


British  Legation, 
Washington,  D  C.,  October  12, 1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of  the  4th 
instant,  relative  to  communications  between  ships-of-war  and  the  ports  in 
the  southern  States,  now  under  blockade. 

You  have  apprised  me  in  that  note  that  information  has  reached  the 
Department  of  State  that  foreign  vessels-of-war  which  have  entered  those 
ports  since  the3T  were  blockaded,  have  in  some  instances  carried  passengers, 
and  in  others  private  correspondence.  You  were  so  good  as  to  assure  me 
verbally,  yesterday,  that  no  British  ship-of-war  was  included  among  those 
to  which  your  note  thus  referred.  Indeed,  I  have  every  reason  to  believe 
that,  with  a  single  exception,  no  British  ship-of-war  has  communicated  with 
any  of  the  ports  under  blockade.  The  ship  which  I  except  is  the  “  Steady;’7 
of  my  intention  to  request  the  commander  of  this  ship  to  leave  official  de¬ 
spatches  at  Charleston,  1  had  the  honor  to  inform  you  on  the  18th  of  last 
month.  The  “  Steady”  accordingly  sailed  for  Charleston  a  few  days  after¬ 
wards.  She  carried  no  letters  except  official  despatches  from  me  or  other 
authorities  of  foreign  governments  in  the  United  States,  and  no  passenger 
excepting  Mr.  Fullaston,  her  Majesty’s  acting  consul  at  Savannah,  who  was 
landed  at  Charleston  on  his  way  back  to  his  post. 

As  several  of  my  colleagues  have  expressed  to  me  their  desire  to  send 
official  despatches  to  the  consuls  of  their  respective  governments  by  any  of 
her  Majesty’s  ships  which  may  hereafter  convey  despatches  for  me  to  the 
ports  under  blockade,  I  shall  be  much  obliged  if  you  will  inform  me  whether 
3*ou  see  any  objection  to  1113"  forwarding  to  those  ports,  b3T  her  Majesty’s 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


153 


ships,  despatches  addressed  by  official  authorities  of  foreign  countries  to 
other  official  authorities  ol  their  own  countries. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

LYONS. 


Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Washington,  October  14,  1861. 

Sir:  Her  Majesty’s  government  were  much  concerned  to  find  that  two 
British  subjects,  Mr.  Patrick  and  Mr.  Rahming,  had  been  subjected  to  arbi¬ 
trary  arrest;  and  although  they  had  learnt  from  a  telegraphic  despatch  from 
me  that  Mr.  Patrick  had  been  released,  they  could  not  but  regard  the  matter 
as  one  requiring  their  very  serious  consideration. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  perceive  that  when  British  subjects  as  well  as 
American  citizens  are  arrested  they  are  immediately  transferred  to  a  military 
prison,  and  that  the  military  authorities  refuse  to  pay  obedience  to  a  writ  of 
habeas  corpus. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  conceive  that  this  practice  is  directly  opposed 
to  the  maxim  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  “  that  no  person  shall 
be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law.” 

Her  Majesty’s  government  are  willing,  however,  to  make  every  allowance 
for  the  hard  necessities  of  a  time  of  internal  trouble;  and  they  would  not 
have  been  surprised  if  the  ordinary  securities  of  personal  liberty  had  been 
temporarily  suspended,  nor  would  they  have  complained  if  British  subjects 
falling  under  suspicion  had  suffered  from  the  consequences  of  that  suspen¬ 
sion. 

But  it  does  not  appear  that  Congress  has  sanctioned  in  this  respect  any 
departure  from  the  due  course  of  law;  and  it  is  in  these  circumstances  that 
the  law  officers  of  the  crown  have  advised  her  Majesty’s  government  that 
the  arbitrary  arrests  of  British  subjects  are  illegal. 

So  far  as  appears  to  her  Majesty’s  government,  the  Secretary  of  State  of 
the  United  States  exercises,  upon  the  reports  of  spies  and  informers,  the  power 
of  depriving  British  subjects  of  their  liberty,  of  retaining  them  in  prison,  or 
liberating  them,  by  his  own  will  and  pleasure. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  cannot  but  regard  this  despotic  and  arbitrary 
power  as  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  at 
variance  with  the  treaties  of  amity  subsisting  between  the  two  nations, 
and  as  tending  to  prevent  the  resort  of  British  subjects  to  the  United  States 
for  the  purposes  of  trade  and  industry. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  have  therefore  felt  bound  to  instruct  me  to 
remonstrate  against  such  irregular  proceedings,  and  to  say  that,  in  their 
opinion,  the  authority  of  Congress  is  necessary  in  order  to  justify  the  arbi¬ 
trary  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  British  subjects. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  most 
obedient,  numble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  &c. 


154 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State. 

Washington ,  October  14,  1861. 

My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  your  lordship’s  note  of  the 
present  date. 

In  that  paper  you  inform  me  that  the  British  government  is  much  con¬ 
cerned  to  find  that  two  British  subjects,  Mr.  Patrick  and  Mr.  Rahming,  have 
been  brought  under  arbitrary  arrest,  and  that  although  her  Majesty’s  minis¬ 
ters  have  been  advised  by  you  of  the  release  of  Mr.  Patrick,  yet  they  cannot 
but  regard  the  matter  as  requiring  the  very  serious  consideration  of  this 
government. 

You  further  inform  me  that  her  Majesty’s  government  perceive  that  when 
British  subjects,  as  well  as  American  citizens,  are  arrested,  they  are  tians- 
ferred  to  a  military  prison,  and  that  the  military  authorities  refuse  to  pay 
obedience  to  a  writ  of  habeas  corpus. 

You  add  that  her  Majesty’s  government  conceive  that  this  practice  is 
directly  opposed  to  the  maxim  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  that 
no  person  shall  be  deprived  of  life,  liberty,  or  property,  without  due  process 
of  law.  You  then  observe  that  her  Majesty’s  government  are  nevertheless 
willing  to  make  every  allowance  for  the  hard  necessities  of  a  time  of  internal 
trouble,  and  they  would  not  have  been  surprised  if  the  ordinary  securities 
of  personal  liberty  had  been  temporarily  suspended,  nor  would  they  have 
complained  if  British  subjects,  falling  under  suspicion,  had  suffered  from  the 
consequences  of  that  suspension.  But  that  it  does  not  appear  that  Congress 
has  sanctioned,  in  this  respect,  any  departure  from  the  due  course  of  law, 
and  it  is  in  these  circumstances  that  the  law  officers  of  the  crown  have 
advised  her  Majesty’s  government  that  the  arrests  of  British  subjects  are 
illegal. 

You  remark  further,  that,  so  far  as  appears  to  her  Majesty’s  government, 
the  Secretary  of  State  for  the  United  States  examines  upon  the  reports  of 
spies,  and  assumes  the  power  of  depriving  British  subjects  of  their  liberty 
or  liberating  them  by  his  own  will  and  pleasure;  and  you  inform  me  that 
her  Majesty’s  government  cannot  but  regard  this  despotic  and  arbitrary 
power  as  inconsistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  at 
variance  with  the  treaties  of  amity  subsisting  between  the  two  nations,  and 
as  tending  to  prevent  the  resort  of  British  subjects  to  the  United  States  for 
purposes  of  trade  and  industry.  You  conclude  with  informing  me  that  upon 
these  grounds  her  Majesty’s  government  have  felt  bound  to  instruct  you  to 
remonstrate  against  such  irregular  proceedings,  and  to  say  that,  in  their 
opinion,  the  authority  of  Congress  is  necessary  in  order  to  justify  the  arbi¬ 
trary  arrest  and  imprisonment  of  British  subjects. 

The  facts  in  regard  to  the  two  persons  named  in  your  note  are  as  follows: 

Communications  from  the  regular  police  of  the  country  to  the  Executive 
at  Washington  showed  that  disloyal  persons  in  the  State  of  Alabama  were 
conducting  treasonable  correspondence  with  confederates,  British  subjects 
and  American  citizens,  in  Europe,  aimed  at  the  overthrow  of  the  federal 
Union  by  armed  forces  actually  in  the  field,  and  besieging  the  capital  of  the 
I  nited  States.  A  portion  of  this  correspondence  which  was  intercepted 
was  addressed  to  the  firm  of  Smith  &  Patrick,  brokers,  long  established  and 
doing  business  in  the  city  of  New  York.  It  appeared  that  this  firm  had  a 
branch  at  Mobile;  that  the  partner,  Smith,  is  a  disloyal  citizen  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  he  was  in  Europe  when  the  treasonable  papers  were  sent 
from  Mobile,  addressed  through  the  house  of  Smith  &;  Patrick,  in  New  York. 
On  receiving  this  information  William  Patrick  was  arrested  and  committed 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


155 


into  military  custody  at  Fort  Lafayette  by  an  order  of  the  Secretary  of  War 
of  the  United  States,  addressed  to  the  police  of  the  city  of  New  York. 
These  proceedings  took  place  on  the  28th  of  August  last. 

Representations  were  thereupon  made  to  the  Secretary  of  State  by  friends 
of  Mr.  Patrick  to  the  effect  that  notwithstanding  his  associations  he  was 
personally  loyal  to  this  government,  and  that  he  was  ignorant  of  the  trea¬ 
sonable  nature  of  the  correspondence  which  was  being  carried  on  through 
the  mercantile  house  of  which  he  was  a  member.  Directions  were  thereupon 
given  by  the  Secretary  of  State  to  a  proper  agent  to  inquire  into  the  cor¬ 
rectness  of  the  facts  thus  piesented,  and  this  inquiry  resulted  in  the  estab¬ 
lishment  of  their  truth.  Mr.  William  Patrick  was  thereupon  promptly 
released  from  custody  by  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  State.  This  release 
occurred  on  the  thirteenth  day  of  September  last. 

On  the  second  day  of  September  the  superintendent  of  police  in  the  city 
of  N  ew  York  informed  the  Secretary  of  State,  by  telegraph,  that  he  had 
under  arrest  J.  0.  Rahming,  who  had  just  arrived  from  Nassau,  where  he 
had  attempted  to  induce  the  owners  of  the  schooner  “Arctic”  to  take  cannon 
to  Wilmington,  in  North  Carolina,  for  the  use  of  the  rebels,  and  inquired 
what  should  he  do  with  the  prisoner.  J.  C.  Rahming  was  thereupon  com¬ 
mitted  into  military  custody  at  Fort  Lafayette  under  a  mandate  from  the 
Secretary  of  State.  This  commitment  was  made  on  the  second  day  of  Sep¬ 
tember.  On  the  17th  day  of  that  month  this  prisoner,  after  due  inquiry,  was 
released  from  custody  on  his  executing  a  bond  in  the  penalty  of  two  tho  usand 
five  hundred  dollars,  with  a  condition  that  he  should  thereafter  bear  true 
allegiance  to  the  United  States,  and  do  no  act  hostile  or  injurious  to  them 
while  remaining  under  their  protection. 

I  have  to  regret  that,  after  so  long  an  official  intercourse  between  the 
governments  of  the  United  States  and  Great  Britain,  it  should  be  necessary 
now  to  inform  her  Majesty’s  ministers  that  all  executive  proceedings,  whether 
of  the  Secretary  of  War  or  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  are,  unless  disavowed 
or  revoked  by  the  President,  proceedings  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States. 

Certainly  it  is  not  necessary  to  announce  to  the  British  government  now 
that  an  insurrection,  attended  by  civil  and  even  social  war,  was  existing  in 
the  United  States  when  the  proceedings  which  I  have  thus  related  took 
place.  But  it  does  seem  necessary  to  state,  for  the  information  of  that  gov¬ 
ernment,  that  Congress  is,  by  the  Constitution,  invested  with  no  executive 
power  or  responsibility  whatever;  and,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  is,  by  the  Constitution  and  laws,  invested  with  the  whole 
executive  power  of  the  government,  and  charged  with  the  supreme  direction 
of  all  municipal  or  ministerial  civil  agents,  as  well  as  of  the  whole  land 
and  naval  forces  of  the  Union;  and  that,  invested  with  those  ample  powers, 
he  is  charged  by  the  Constitution  and  laws  with  the  absolute  duty  of  sup¬ 
pressing  insurrection  as  well  as  of  preventing  and  repelling  invasion;  and 
that  for  these  purposes  he  constitutionally  exercises  the  right  of  suspending 
the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  whenever  and  wheresoever  and  in  whatsoever  extent 
the  public  safety,  endangered  by  treason  or  invasion  in  arms,  in  his  judg¬ 
ment  requires. 

The  proceedings  of  which  the  British  government  complain  were  taken 
upon  information  conveyed  to  the  President  by  legal  police  authorities  of 
the  country,  and  they  were  not  instituted  until  after  he  had  suspended  the 
great  writ  of  freedom  in  just  the  extent  that,  in  view  of  the  perils  of  the 
State,  he  deemed  necessary.  For  the  exercise  of  that  discretion  he,  as  well 
as  his  advisers,  among  whom  are  the  Secretary  of  War  and  the  Secretary  of 
State,  is  responsible  by  law  before  the  highest  judicial  tribunal  of  the 
republic,  and  amenable  also  to  the  judgment  of  his  countrymen  and  the 
enlightened  opinion  of  the  civilized  world. 


156 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


A  candid  admission  contained  in  your  letter  relieves  me  of  any  necessity 
for  showing’  that  the  two  persons  named  therein  were  neither  known  nor 
supposed  to  be  British  subjects  when  the  proceedings  occurred,  and  that  in 
every  case  subjects  of  her  Majesty  residing  in  the  United  States,  and  under 
their  protection,  are  treated  during  the  present  troubles  in  the  same  manner 
and  with  no  greater  or  less  rigor  than  American  citizens. 

The  military  prison  which  was  used  for  the  temporary  detention  of  the 
suspected  parties  is  a  fort  constructed  and  garrisoned  for  the  public  defence. 
The  military  officer  charged  with  their  custody  l  as  declined  to  pay  obedience 
to  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus,  but  the  refusal  was  made  in  obedience  to  an 
express  direction  of  the  President,  in  the  exercise  of  his  functions  as  com¬ 
mander-in-chief  of  all  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  United  States.  Although 
it  is  not  very  important,  it  certainly  is  not  entirely  irrelevant  to  add  that,  so 
far  as  I  am  informed,  no  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  attempted  to  be  served, 
or  was  even  sued  out  or  applied  for  in  behalf  of  either  of  the  persons  named  ; 
although  in  a  case  not  dissimilar  the  writ  of  habeas  corpus  was  issued  out 
in  favor  of  another  British  subject,  and  was  disobeyed  by  direction  of  the 
President. 

The  British  government  have  candidly  conceded,  in  the  remonstrance  be¬ 
fore  me,  that  even  in  this  country,  so  remarkable  for  so  long  an  enjoyment, 
by  its  people  of  the  highest  immunities  of  personal  freedom,  war,  and  es¬ 
pecially  civil  war,  cannot  be  conducted  exclusively  in  the  forms  and  with 
the  dilatory  remedies  provided  by  municipal  laws  which  are  adequate  to  the 
preservation  of  public  order  in  a  time  of  peace.  Treason  always  operates,  if 
possible,  by  surprise,  and  prudence  and  humanity  therefore  equally  require 
that  violence  concocted  in  secret  shall  be  prevented  if  practicable  by  unu¬ 
sual  and  vigorous  precaution.  I  am  fully  aware  of  the  inconveniences  which 
result  from  the  practice  of  such  precaution,  embarrassing  communities  in 
social  life,  and  affecting  perhaps  trade  and  intercourse  with  foreign  nations. 
But  the  American  people,  after  having  tried  in  every  way  to  avert  civil  war, 
have  accepted  it  at  last  as  a  stern  necessity.  Their  chief  interest,  while  it 
lasts,  is  not  the  enjoyments  of  society,  or  the  profits  of  trade,  but  the  saving 
of  the  national  life.  That  life  saved,  all  the  other  blessings  which  attach  to  it 
will  speedily  return,  with  greater  assurance  of  continuance  than  ever  before. 
The  safety  of  the  whole  people  has  become,  in  the  present  emergency,  the 
supreme  law,  and  so  long  as  the  danger  shall  exist,  all  classes  of  society 
equally,  the  denizen  and  the  citizen,  cheerfully  acquiesce  in  the  measures 
which  that  law  prescribes. 

This  government  does  not  question  the  learning  of  the  legal  advisers  of 
the  British  crown  or  the  justice  of  the  deference  which  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment  pays  to  them.  Nevertheless  the  British  government  will  hardly  ex¬ 
pect  that  the  President  will  accept  their  explanations  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States,  especially  when  the  Constitution,  thus  expounded,  would 
leave  upon  him  the  sole  executive  responsibility  of  suppressing  the  existing 
insurrection,  while  it  would  transfer  to  Congress  the  most  material  and  in¬ 
dispensable  power  to  be  employed  for  that  purpose.  Moreover,  these  ex¬ 
planations  find  no  real  support  in  the  letter,  much  less  in  the  spirit,  of  the 
Constitution  itself.  He  must  be  allowed,  therefore,  to  prefer  and  be  gov¬ 
erned  by  the  view  of  our  organic  national  law,  which,  while  it  will  enable 
him  to  execute  his  great  trust  with  complete  success,  receives  the  sanction 
of  the  highest  authorities  of  our  own  country,  and  is  sustained  by  the  gen 
oral  consent  of  the  people,  for  whom  alone  that  Constitution  was  established 

1  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  offer  to  your  lordship  a  renewed  as 
surance  of  my  very  high  consideration. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  &c. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


157 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  14,  1861. 

My  Lord:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  note  of  the  12th  instant, 
in  answer  to  mine  of  the  4th,  relative  to  the  carriage  of  passengers  and 
private  letters  in  vessels  of  war  of  foreign  powers  to  and  from  ports  of  the 
United  States  under  blockade. 

In  reply,  I  have  the  honor  to  acquaint  you  that  no  complaint  has  been 
made  to  this  department  that  any  British  vessel  had  indulged  in  this  practice  ; 
but  insomuch  as  such  a  proceeding,  if  acquiesced  in  at  all  by  this  govern¬ 
ment,  would  defeat  the  objects  of  the  blockade,  it  was  deemed  advisable  to 
address  a  circular  upon  the  subject  to  the  representatives  here  of  the  prin¬ 
cipal  maritime  powers.  No  objection  is  entertained  to  the  transmission, 
through  the  channel  of  vessels  of  war  of  friendly  powers,  of  any  official 
correspondence  with  the  agents  of  those  powers  in  blockaded  ports. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  offer  to  your  lordship  a  renewed  assu¬ 
rance  of  my  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  &c.,  &c.,  &e. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 
CIRCULAR. 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  16,  1861. 

My  Lord:  The  judge  of  the  court  of  the  United  States  for  the  southern 
district  of  New  York  having  recently  decided,  after  elaborate  argument  of 
counsel,  that  the  law  of  blockade  does  not  permit  a  vessel  in  a  blockaded 
port  to  take  on  board  cargo  after  the  commencement  of  the  blockade,  with  a 
view  to  avoid  any  future  misunderstanding  upon  this  subject,  you  are  in¬ 
formed  that  the  law,  as  thus  interpreted  by  the  judge,  will  be  expected  to  be 
strictly  observed  by  all  vessels  in  ports  of  insurgent  States  during  their 
blockade  b}7  the  naval  forces  of  the  United  States. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  offer  to  your  lordship  a  renewed  assurance 
of  mv  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Washington,  October  17,  1861. 

Sir:  I  beg  to  offer  you  my  thanks  for  the  note  dated  the  14th  instant, 
which  you  have  done  me  the  honor  to  write  to  me  in  answer  to  that  dated 
the  12th  instant,  which  I  addressed  to  you  on  the  subject  of  transmitting 
official  correspondence  by  her  Majesty’s  ships  of  war  to  the  blockaded  ports. 

It  is  with  reluctance  that  I  importune  you  further  in  this  matter.  But  as 
I  am  very  anxious  to  avoid  all  risk  of  misapprehending  your  wishes,  I  venture 


158 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


to  ask  you  whether  I  am  right  in  understanding  that  you  have  no  objection 
to  my  sending  to  the  blockaded  ports,  by  her  Majesty’s  ships  of  war,  not  only 
British  official  correspondence  with  British  authorities,  but  also  the  official 
correspondence  of  other  powers  friendly  to  the  United  States,  with  the  agents 
of  the  same  powers  in  the  southern  States. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

The  Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  18,  1861. 

My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
yesterday,  and  to  state,  in  reply,  that  it  was  intended  in  my  previous  commu¬ 
nication,  to  which  it  refers,  to  say  that  official  correspondence  of  other  powers 
with  the  agents  of  those  powers  in  blockaded  ports,  as  well  as  that  of  British 
authorities  with  their  agents,  might  be  sent  by  British  vessels  of  war. 

I  am,  &c , 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Washington,  October  23,  1861. 

Sir:  Having  received  information  that  a  bag  of  despatches  addressed  by 
her  Majesty’s  acting  consul  at  Richmond,  in  Virginia,  to  her  Majesty’s  consul 
at  New  York  had  been  taken  from  a  gentleman  of  the  name  of  Crosse,  at 
Baltimore,  and  sent  to  General  Dix,  I  directed  Mr.  Bernal,  her  Majesty’s 
consul  at  the  latter  place,  to  make  inquiries  of  the  general  on  the  subject. 
You  will  perceive  by  the  enclosed  copy  of  a  despatch  from  Mr.  Bernal  that 
the  general  referred  him  to  you.  I  therefore  do  myself  the  honor  to  ask  you 
to  be  so  kind  as  to  favor  me  with  such  information  as  it  seems  proper  that 
I  should  receive  with  regard  to  the  seizure  of  the  despatches  in  question. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

LYONS. 


Mr.  Bernal  to  Lord  Lyons. 

British  Consulate, 
Baltimore,  October  22,  1861. 

My  Lord:  In  pursuance  of  the  instructions  in  your  lordship’s  despatch  of 
the  19th  (received  this  morning)  having  reference  to  the  reported  seizure 
of  a  bag  of  despatches,  I  proceeded  to  Fort  McHenry,  where  I  had  an  inter¬ 
view  with  General  Dix.  I  asked  him  to  be  good  enough  to  inform  me  if  it 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


159 


was  true  that  on  or  about  the  16th  instant  a  bag1  of  despatches,  addressed 
to  her  Majesty’s  consul  in  New  York  by  her  Majesty’s  acting  consul  at 
Richmond,  was  taken  away  from  Mr.  Thomas  Crosse,  a  British  subject,  by 
the  provost  marshal  in  this  city,  and  sent  to  him.  General  Dix  replied  very 
briefly  that  he  must  decline  giving  me  any  information,  and  referred  me  to 
Mr.  Seward.  In  order  that  there  should  be  no  mistake,  I  repeated  my  ques¬ 
tion,  and  received  the  same  answer. 

I  have,  &c., 


F.  BERNAL. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  24,  1861. 

My  Lord:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
yesterday,  requesting  information  in  regard  to  a  bag  supposed  to  contain 
despatches  from  the  acting  British  consul  at  Richmond,  addressed  to  Mr. 
Archibald,  the  British  consul  at  New  York,  which  bag  was  taken  from  a 
man  named  Cross  by  the  provost  marshal  of  Baltimore. 

In  reply,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  having  received  information 
from  General  Dix  that  such  a  bag  had  been  found  concealed  in  the  trunk  of 
a  man  of  that  name — a  spy  of  the  insurgents,  who  escaped  before  he  could 
be  arrested — I  directed  the  general  to  forward  it  hither.  On  its  arrival, 
although  it  had  a  label  attached  to  it,  addressed  to  Mr.  Archibald,  and  the 
words  on  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  service,  there  was  nothing  to  identify  it 
as  having  been  forwarded  by  the  British  vice-consul  at  Richmond.  This 
circumstance,  in  connexion  with  those  under  which  the  bag  was  brought 
through  the  military  lines  of  the  United  States,  naturally  occasioned  doubts 
as  to  its  containing  official  correspondence.  I  consequently  directed  the 
bag  to  be  opened,  when  it  proved  to  contain  not  a  single  communication  for 
Mr.  Archibald,  or  for  any  other  officer  of  the  British  government  on  this  con¬ 
tinent.  It  did  contain  a  few  apparently  official  letters  to  functionaries  of 
the  British  government  at  London.  These  were  promptly  forwarded,  as  re¬ 
ceived,  to  Mr.  Adams,  with  directions  to  cause  them  to  be  delivered  to  their 
address. 

The  other  contents  of  the  bag  are,  and  will  be,  retained  here.  It  is 
unnecessary  to  specify  their  character.  I  will  only  add  that  they  are  such 
as  no  consul,  or  acting  consul,  of  a  foreign  government  has  a  right  to  for¬ 
ward  in  any  way  from  a  place  in  rebellion  against  this  government. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  offer  to  your  lordship  a  renewed  assu¬ 
rance  of  my  very  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

To  Lord  Lyons. 


Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Washington,  October  28,  1861. 

Sir  :  Her  Majesty’s  government  have  had  under  their  consideration  the 
note  which  I  had  the  honor  to  address  to  you  on  the  22d  ultimo,  with  the 
despatch  from  Mr.  Consul  Archibald  which  accompanied  it. 


1G0 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Her  Majesty’s  government  have  learned  with  much  surprise,  from  those 
papers,  the  cruel  treatment  to  which  the  nine  British  seamen  who  were 
imprisoned  in  Fort  Lafayette  were  subjected  by  the  United  States  author¬ 
ities.  Her  Majesty’s  government  are  unable  to  comprehend  the  grounds  on 
which  persons,  who  were  accused  of  no  offence,  were  confined  in  irons  and 
treated  as  criminals  ;  anrl  although  it  has  been  satisfactory  to  them  to  learn, 
from  the  answer  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  make  to  my  representations 
on  the  subject,  that  orders  were  given  for  the  release  of  these  men,  yet  her 
Majesty’s  government  cannot  but  consider  that  some  amends  are  due  to 
them  for  the  sufferings  to  which  they  were  thus  causelessly  exposed.  Her 
Majesty’s  government  have  accordingly  instructed  me  to  bring  the  matter 
again  to  the  notice  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  to  express 
their  hope  that  due  compensation  may  be  awarded  to  the  sufferers. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

LYONS. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

No.  122.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  11,  1861. 

Sir  :  The  case  in  regard  to  pirates  engaged  by  the  insurgents  in  this 
country  practically  stands  thus:  every  naval  power,  and  every  commercial 
power  except  one,  practically  excludes  them  from  their  ports,  except  in  dis¬ 
tress,  or  for  a  visit  of  any  kind  longer  than  twenty-four  hours,  and  from 
supplies,  except  of  coals,  for  twenty-four  hour’s  consumption. 

Great  Britain,  as  we  are  given  to  understand  by  the  answer  of  Earl 
Russell,  allows  these  pirates  to  visit  her  ports  and  stay  at  their  own  pleasure, 
receiving  supplies  without  restriction. 

We  find  it  difficult  to  believe  that  the  government  of  Great  Britain  has 
constituted  this  exception  with  full  deliberation.  1  intimated  in  a  preced¬ 
ing  despatch,  No.  112,  a  hope  that  the  subject  might  be  reconsidered  before 
it  should  be  necessary  for  us  to  consider  what  remedies  we  can  adopt  to 
prevent  the  evils  which  must  result  to  our  commerce  from  the  policy  thus 
indicated  by  Great  Britain.  I  have  consulted  on  the  subject  with  Lord 
Lyons,  and  he  may  perhaps  communicate  with  his  government  thereupon. 
Meantime,  I  am  directed  by  the  President  to  instruct  you  to  recall  the  atten¬ 
tion  of  her  Majesty’s  government  to  the  question,  under  the  influences  of  a 
spirit  of  peace  and  friendship,  and  with  a  desire  to  preserve  what  remains 
of  a  commerce  mutually  important  to  both  countries. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  (£c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


161 


CASE  OF  THE  PERTHSHIRE. 
Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 


British  Legation, 

Washington ,  D.  C.,  October  11,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  a  copy  of  a  memorial  addressed 
to  Earl  Russell,  her  Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs, 
by  Mr.  William  Gray,  owner  of  the  British  ship  “  Perthshire,”  which  appears 
to  have  been  interfered  with  by  United  States  ships-of-war.  I  am  directed 
by  Lord  Russell  to  ask  the  government  of  the  United  States  for  an  explana¬ 
tion. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient, 
humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  W.  II.  Seward,  fye.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Gray  to  Earl  Bussell. 

Hartlepool,  August  28,  1861. 

My  Lord  :  I  take  the  liberty  of  directing  your  lordship’s  attention,  in  your 
official  capacity  as  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  to  the  following  facts 
connected  with  the  seizure  and  detention  by  a  United  States  steamship  of 
the  ship  “Perthshire,”  of  the  port  of  Hartlepool,  whilst  engaged  in  lawful 
commerce  upon  the  high  seas,  and  to  request  that  your  lordship  will,  through 
the  British  ambassador  at  Washington,  bring  the  case  before  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States,  and  demand  compensation  for  the  loss  I  have 
sustained  by  the  detention  of  my  ship,  and  which  loss  I  estimate  at  the  sum 
of  two  hundred  pounds  sterling,  besides  rendering  void  all  insurances 
effected  upon  the  ship,  her  cargo  and  freight,  (of  the  gross  value  of  forty 
thousand  pounds  sterling,)  by  compelling  the  ship  to  deviate  from  her 
voyage. 

The  “Perthshire,”  a  ship  of  810  tons  register,  was  chartered  by  a  mer¬ 
chant  in  Liverpool,  in  March  last,  to  proceed  in  ballast  from  Grimsby  to 
Pensacola,  and  there  load  a  cargo  of  timber  for  the  United  Kingdom  ;  the 
charterer,  however,  having  the  option,  through  his  agent  at  Pensacola,  of 
ordering  the  ship  to  Mobile  to  load  cotton  for  Liverpool  at  a  lump  sum  of 
£2,300. 

The  ship  sailed  from  Grimsby  in  March  last,  and  on  the  13th  of  May  was 
making  for  the  harbor  of  Pensacola,  when  she  was  ordered  to  heave  to  by 
the  commander  of  the  United  States  steamship  “  Niagara.”  She  was  boarded 
by  Lieutenant  Brown,  boarding  officer,  who  informed  Captain  Oates,  of  the 
“  Perthshire,”  that  Pensacola  was  blockaded,  and  indorsed  the  vessel’s 
register  as  follows  : 

“Boarded  by  the  United  States  squadron  May  13,  1861,  and  warned  not 
to  enter  the  harbor  of  Pensacola. 

“GEORGE  BROWN, 

“ Lieut.  United  Stoles  Navy ,  Boarding  Officer .” 


11 


162 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


In  reply  to  the  inquiry  of  Captain  Oates,  the  lieutenant  informed  him  that 
Mobile  was  not  blockaded.  The  ship  then  proceeded  to  Mobile,  where  she 
arrived  on  the  14th  May.  Mobile  was  not  blockaded  until  May  26.  At 
Mobile  the  “  Perthshire  ”  loaded  a  cargo  of  cotton  for  Liverpool,  and  pro¬ 
ceeded  to  sea  on  May  31  ;  outside  the  port  she  was  again  boarded  by  the 
boarding  officer  of  the  United  States  steamship  “  Niagara,”  who  examined 
his  [her]  clearances,  expressed  himself  satisfied  with  them,  and  said  the 
ship  might  proceed  on  her  voyage.  She  proceeded  with  light  and  variable 
winds  until  the  9th  of  June,  when  she  was  boarded  by  the  boarding  officer 
of  the  United  States  ship  “  Massachusetts,”  who,  after  communicating  with 
his  ship,  sent  a  prize  crew  of  29  men  and  2  officers  on  board  the  “  Perth¬ 
shire,”  who  took  possession  of  the  ship  and  all  the  captain’s  papers,  hauled 
down  the  British  flag  and  hoisted  the  United  States  flag.  They  altered  the 
course  of  the  ship,  and  took  her  back  towards  Pensacola,  off  which  place, 
on  the  12th  of  June,  after  sailing  about  200  miles  back,  they  fell  in  with 
the  United  States  squadron,  the  commander  of  which  ordered  the  “Perth¬ 
shire’s”  release,  without,  however,  making  any  compensation  for  the  deten¬ 
tion  to  which  she  had  been  subjected,  nor  for  the  ship’s  stores,  consisting  of 
tea,  coffee,  and  sugar,  used  by  the  prize  crew  whilst  on  board  the  “  Perth¬ 
shire.” 

On  the  ship  being  released,  the  captain’s  papers  were  returned  to  him, 
and  his  clearance  indorsed  as  follows  : 

“Boarded  June  9,  1861,  by  the  United  States  steamship  ‘Massachusetts/ 
detained  under  note  159,  page  339,  Mattel’s  Law  of  Nations  ;  liberated  by 
commanding  officer  of  the  Gulf  squadron  June  12,  1861.” 

This  indorsement  was  without  any  signature. 

A  paper  was  given  to  the  captain  of  the  “Perthshire,”  on  which  was 
written,  also  without  signature,  as  follows  : 

“Mattel’s  Law  of  Nations.  Sir  Walter  Scott’s  Opinion.  Note  159,  page 
339,  article  3.  Things  to  be  proved: 

“  1.  The  existence  of  a  blockade. 

“  2.  The  knowledge  of  the  party  supposed  to  have  offended. 

“  3.  Some  act  of  violation.” 


Such,  my  lord,  is  a  plain,  unvarnished  statement  of  the  facts  connected 
with  this  extraordinary  seizure  and  detention.  The  ship  having  reached  her 
destination  safely  prevents  a  discussion  as  to  liability  in  the  event  of  loss 
after  the  deviation  in  the  voyage,  but  which  the  Liverpool  underwriters  say 
they  would  have  been  exempted  from  had  such  taken  place. 

The  ground  upon  which  I  base  my  claim  for  <£200  is  as  follows:  The  ship 
had  been  nine  days  at  sea  when  she  was  seized.  IShe  was  taken  back  almost 
to  the  place  from  which  she  first  started,  and  three  days  after  that  (or  twelve 
days  from  leaving  Mobile)  she  was  as  far  from  Liverpool  as  on  the  31st  of 
May,  when  she  sailed  from  Mobile.  Her  freight  was  about  £550  per  month, 
and  twelve  days  at  that  fate  is  about  the  sum  I  claim. 

The  case  of  the  “  Perthshire,”  my  lord,  has  been  commented  upon  by  all 
the  leading  journals  in  Great  Britain,  and  without  exception  they  pronounce 
it  a  case  in  which  our  government  ought  to  make  a  demand  for  damages.  I 
venture  to  hope,  therefore,  that  your  lordship  will  take  such  steps  with 
regard  to  this  matter  as  will  prevent  a  repetition  of  improper  interference 
with  British  ships,  and  at  the  same  time  obtain  for  me  the  reasonable  and 
fair  compensation  I  claim. 

I  have,  &c. 


WILLIAM  GRAY, 
Owner  of  the  ship  “ Perthshire .” 
The  Right  Hon.  Earl  Russell,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


163 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Welles. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  19,  1861. 

Sir:  I  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  a  note  from  the  British  minister  of  the 
11th  instant,  and  of  its  accompaniment,  respecting’  an  alleged  interference 
with  tie  British  ship  “  Perthshire  ”  by  vessels  of  the  United  States  blockading 
squadron. 

I  will  thank  you  to  furnish  me  with  such  information  upon  the  subject  as 
will  enable  me  to  reply  to  the  note  of  Lord  Lyons. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Hon.  Gideon  Welles, 

Secretary  of  the  Navy. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  19,  1861. 

My  Lord  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  note  of 
the  11th  instant,  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  a  memorial  addressed  to  her 
Majesty’s  principal  secretary  of  state  for  foreign  affairs,  by  Mr.  William 
Gray,  owner  of  the  British  ship  Perthshire,  alleged  to  have  been  interfered 
with  by  United  States  ships-of-war. 

A  copy  of  those  papers  has  been  transmitted  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy 
with  a  view  to  a  proper  investigation  of  the  matter.  When  the  reply  of 
that  officer  shall  have  been  received,  I  shall  lose  no  time  in  communicating 
to  your  lordship  the  result  of  the  investigation. 

Accept,  my  lord,  the  assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  8fC.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Welles  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Navy  Department,  October  24,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the 
19th  instant  and  enclosures,  and  to  transmit  herewith  a  copy  of  a  report  of 
Captain  William  W.  McKean,  commanding  United  States  ship  Niagara,  and 
a  copy  of  a  report  of  Commander  Melancton  Smith,  which  contain  such  in¬ 
formation  as  the  department  possesses  in  relation  to  the  seizure  of  the  Brit¬ 
ish  ship  “Perthshire”  by  the  United  States  steamer  Massachusetts,  and  her 
subsequent  release  by  order  of  Captain  McKean. 

I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GIDEON  WELLES. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


164 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Captain  McKean  to  Commodore  Mervine . 

United  States  Steamer  Niagara, 

Off  Soitfhicest  Pass  of  Mississippi,  September  19,  1861. 

!5iR :  Your  communication  of  the  17th  instant,  with  the  accompanying 
document,  was  received  on  the  18th  instant. 

The  English  ship  "Perthshire,”  Captain  James  Oates,  left  the  harbor  of 
Mobile  on  the  30th  of  June,  1861,  and  was  boarded  by  Lieutenant  Spicer, 
from  this  ship,  and  passed  by  my  order,  the  fifteen  days  allowed  by  the  proc¬ 
lamation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  neutral  vessels  to  depart 
not  having  expired. 

I  am  under  the  impression  that  no  indorsement  was  made  upon  her  regis¬ 
ter,  as  I  did  not  consider  it  necessary. 

I  arrived  off  Fort  Pickens  in  the  Niagara  early  on  the  morning  of  the  12th 
of  June,  1861.  A  large  ship,  which  proved  to  be  the  “Perthshire,”  had  just 
anchored. 

Immediately  after  the  Niagara  had  come  to  anchor,  Commander  M.  Smith, 
commanding  the  United  States  steamer  Massachusetts,  came  on  board  and 
reported  having  captured  the  Perthshire  in  latitude  27°  27'  and  longitude 
85°  31'. 

I  stated  to  Commander  Smith  that  the  Perthshire  had  left  Mobile  within 
the  time  allowed  by  the  President’s  proclamation  ;  that  I  considered  the  cap¬ 
ture  illegal,  as,  by  order  of  the  department,  no  neutral  vessel  not  having  on 
board  contraband  of  war,  was  to  be  detained  or  captured  unless  attempting 
to  leave  or  enter  a  blockaded  port  after  the  notification  of  blockade  had  been 
indorsed  on  her  register.  1  therefore  directed  him  to  release  the  “Perth¬ 
shire,”  and  to  replace  such  provisions  and  stores  as  might  have  been  used 
by  the  prize  crew. 

She  was  accordingly  released  and  immediately  got  under  way,  Commander 
Smith  having  reported  to  me  that  he  had  not  only  replaced  such  provisions 
as  had  been  used,  but  had  also  supplied  her  with  water. 

I  subsequently  received  from  Captain  Adams  the  report  of  Commander 
Smith,  a  copy  of  which  is  herewith  submitted.  It  bears  no  date. 

As  I  was  in  hourly  expectation  of  your  arrival  from  Key  West,  I  had  fully 
intended  reporting  the  circumstances  to  you,  but  it  escaped  my  memory. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  W.  McKEAN,  Captain. 

Flag  Officer  William  Mervine, 

Commanding  Gulf  Blockading  Squadron, 

United  States  Steam  Frigate  “Colorado” 


Commander  Smith  to  commanding  officer  Gulf  squadron. 

U.  S.  Steamer  Massachusetts, 

Off  Pensacola ,  Florida. 

Sir:  I  have  to  report  that  on  the  9th  instant,  in  latitude  27°  27',  and  lon¬ 
gitude  85°  31',  I  boarded  and  seized  as  a  prize  the  English  ship  “  Perth¬ 
shire,”  from  Mobile,  bound  to  Liverpool,  with  a  cargo  of  2,240  bales  of  cotton; 
said  ship  having  been  boarded  by  one  of  the  blockading  fleet  off  Pensacola, 
May  13th,  and  warned  not  to  enter  the  harbor. 

Two  officers  and  twenty-nine  men  were  placed  on  board  the  prize,  and 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


165 


Ah’.  Wm.  R.  Clark,  acting  master,  was  directed  to  proceed  with  all  possible 
despatch  and  report  to  the  senior  commanding  officer  of  the  Gulf  squadron 
for  instructions. 

In  addition  to  the  above,  I  boarded  ship  Janico  from  Mobile,  ship  Carl  and 
bark  Mary  from  New  Orleans,  all  loaded  with  cotton,  and  with  registers 
indorsed;  also  ship  Bramley  Moore,  from  New  Orleans,  register  not  in¬ 
dorsed,  but  allowed  her  to  proceed  upon  her  voyage,  as  the  time  granted 
vessels  to  clear,  according  to  the  notification  of  blockade,  had  not  expired. 

Very  respectfully, 

MELANCTON  SMITH, 

Commander. 


The  Commanding  Officer 

Gulf  Squadron,  Pensacola. 


[Indorsement  by  Captain  Adams  ] 

June  10,  1861. 

At  the  time  the  Perthshire  was  boarded  from  this  shin  and  ordered  off 

A. 

from  Pensacola  there  was  no  blockade  of  Mobile  or  the  Mississippi  river. 

H.  A.  ADAMS, 

Captain  U.  S.  Frigate  “  Sabine.” 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington,  October  24,  1861. 

My  Lord:  Your  letter  of  the  11th  of  October  last,  presenting  the  claim 
of  Mr.  William  Gray,  owner  of  the  British  ship  “  Perthshire,”  for  damages 
incurred  by  the  detention  of  that  vessel  by  the  blockading  squadron  of  the 
United  States,  was  referred  by  me  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  for  informa¬ 
tion  upon  the  subject. 

I  have  now  received  the  answer  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Navy  thereupon, 
which  fails  to  show  me  that  the  detention  of  the  Perthshire  by  Commander 
Smith,  commanding  the  United  States  steamer  Massachusetts,  was  warranted 
by  law  or  by  the  President’s  proclamation  instituting  the  blockade,  although 
I  am  satisfied  that  that  officer  acted  under  a  misapprehension  of  his  duties, 
and  not  from  any  improper  motive.  It  will  belong  to  Congress  to  appropriate 
the  sum  of  two  hundred  pounds,  claimed  by  Gray,  which  sum  seems  to  me 
not  an  unreasonable  one.  The  President  will  ask  Congress  for  that  appro¬ 
priation  as  soon  as  they  shall  meet,  and  he  will  direct  that  such  instructions 
shall  be  given  to  Commander  Smith  as  will  caution  him  against  a  repetition 
of  the  errors  of  which  you  have  complained. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  lordship  the  assurance 
of  my  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

The  Right  Hon.  Lord  Lyons,  fyc.,  §c.,  fyc. 


AUSTRIA. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Burlingame. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  April  13,  1861. 

Sir  :  It  seems  to  me  that  our  mission  to  Austria  has  not  been  made  as 
useful  hitherto  as  it  ought  to  have  been.  I  think,  indeed,  that  it  has  generally 
been  undervalued,  The  causes  for  this  are  manifest.  We  are  a  commercial 
people,  and  of  course  cultivate  acquaintance  first  and  chiefly  with  other 
commercial  nations.  Situated  on  a  long  Atlantic  coast,  and  confronting  on 
the  opposite  shore  the  commercial  countries  from  whence  our  population  was 
first  and  principally  derived,  we  have  naturally  fallen  into  relations  with 
them  of  the  most  intimate  kind.  Austria  is  distant,  and  it  has  never  been 
a  maritime  nation. 

To  go  no  further  in  the  review  of  its  history  than  1815,  the  Austrian 
government  has  been  that  one  of  the  great  European  powers  which  has 
maintained  more  studiously,  firmly,  and  persistently  than  any  other,  the 
principles  of  unlimited  monarchy,  so  opposite  in  their  character  to  the 
principles  upon  which  our  own  government  has  been  established. 

Again,  Austria  is  not  an  unique  country  with  a  homogeneous  people.  It 
is  a  combination  of  kingdoms,  duchies,  provinces,  and  countries,  added  to 
each  other  by  force,  and  subjected  to  an  imperial  head,  but  remaining  at  the 
same  time  diverse,  distinct,  and  discordant.  The  empire  is  therefore  largely 
destitute  of  that  element  of  nationality  which  is  essential  to  the  establish¬ 
ment  of  free  intercourse  with  remote  foreign  States.  This  absence  of 
nationality  is  observable  in  the  Austrian  emigration  to  the  United  States. 
We  meet  everywhere  here,  in  town  and  country,  Italians,  Hungarians,  Poles, 
Magyars,  Jews,  and  Germans,  who  have  come  to  us  from  that  empire,  but  no 
one  has  ever  seen  a  confessed  Austrain  among  us.  So  when  a  traveller 
visits  Austria  he  passes  through  distinctly  marked  countries,  whose  people 
call  themselves  by  many  different  names,  but  none  of  them  indicative  of 
their  relation  to  the  empire. 

Our  representatives  at  Vienna  seem  generally  to  have  come,  after  a  short 
residence  there,  to  the  conclusion  that  there  was  nothing  for  them  to  do  and 
little  for  them  to  learn.  ***** 

The  President  expects  that  you  will  be  diligent  in  obtaining  not  only 
information  about  political  events,  but  also  commercial  and  even  scientific 
facts,  and  in  reporting  them  to  this  department.  Austria  is  an  interesting* 
field  for  improvement  of  that  kind.  Although  Lombardy,  with  other  Italian 
provinces,  has  recently  been  lost,  yet  the  empire  still  has  a  population  little 
inferior  in  number  to  our  own  ;  and  though  there  are  some  nations  whose 
people  are  more  mercurial,  there  is  no  one  in  the  whole  world  whose  inhab¬ 
itants  are  more  industrious,  frugal,  cheerful,  and  comfortable  ;  none  in  which 
agriculture  derives  more  wealth  from  hard  soils  and  ungenial  skies  ;  none 
where  science,  art,  and  taste  mingle  so  perfectly  with  public  and  private 
economy.  An  undue  portion  of  the  country  is  mountainous.  It  has  never- 


168 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


theless  a  richness  and  variety  of  mineral  and  vegetable  wealth  unequalled 
in  any  other  part  of  Europe.  Many  of  its  productions  could,  if  introduced 
more  freely,  find  a  ready  consumption  here,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
could  supply  Austria  with  materials  and  provisions  which  are  now  at  greater 
cost  received  by  her  from  other  countries.  Many  of  the  Austrian  productions 
and  fabrics  which  we  do  receive  come  to  us  through  the  hands  of  merchants 
in  other  European  States. 

The  insignificance  of  our  commerce  with  Austria  results  in  a  large  degree 
from  her  policy  of  taxing  exports  as  well  as  imports,  and  from  monopolies, 
by  which  she  labors  to  create  a  national  system  of  navigation.  The  subject 
is  one  of  great  interest,  and  you  can  render  an  important  service  probably 
to  both  countries  by  applying  yourself  to  an  examination  of  it  with  a  view 
to  the  negotiation  of  a  more  liberal  treaty  than  the  one  now  in  force. 

Just  now  a  pressure  upon  this  department,  incidental  to  the  beginning  of 
a  new  administration,  renders  it  impossible  for  me  to  descend  into  the  details 
which  must  be  considered  in  this  connexion.  It  is,  however,  a  purpose  of 
the  President  that  the  subject  shall  be  thoroughly  investigated,  and  you  will 
in  due  time  be  fully  instructed.  In  the  meanwhile  you  are  authorized  to 
communicate  his  disposition  in  this  respect  to  the  government  of  his  Imperial 
Royal  Majesty,  and  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  whether  it  would  be  willing  to 
enter  into  a  revision  of  the  commercial  arrangements  now  existing  between 
the  two  nations. 

The  President  is  well  aware  that  the  government  of  Austria  is  naturally 
pre-occupied  with  political  questions  of  great  moment.  It  must  be  confessed, 
also,  that  painful  events  occurring  among  ourselves  have  a  tendency  to 
withdraw  our  thoughts  from  commercial  subjects.  But  it  is  not  to  be  doubted, 
in  the  first  place,  that  political  embarrassments  would  in  both  countries  be 
essentially  relieved  by  any  improvement  of  their  commerce  which  could  be 
made;  and,  second^,  that  the  greater  those  embarrassments  are  the  more 
merit  there  will  be  in  surmounting  them  so  far  as  may  be  necessary  to  effect 
that  improvement.  It  certainly  is  not  the  intention  of  the  President  that 
the  progress  in  material  and  social  improvement  which  this  country  has 
been  making  through  so  many  years  shall  be  arrested  or  hindered  unneces- 
sarily  by  the  peculiar  political  trials  to  which  it  seems  likely  to  be  subjected 
during  the  term  for  which  he  has  been  called  to  conduct  the  administration 
of  its  affairs. 

There  is  a  peculiar  fitness  in  efforts  at  this  time  to  enlarge  our  trade  in 
the  Mediterranean,  for  it  is  never  wise  to  neglect  advantages  which  can  be 
secured  with  small  expense,  and  near  at  home,  while  prosecuting  at  great 
cost,  as  we  are  doing,  great  enterprises  in  remoter  parts  of  the  world.  I 
would  not  overlook  Italy,  Germany,  and  Hungary,  while  reaching  forth  for 
the  trade  of  China  and  Japan. 

I  shall  allude  to  political  affairs  in  Austria  only  so  far  as  is  necessary  to 
enable  me  to  indicate  the  policy  which  the  President  will  pursue  in  regard 
to  them.  They  present  to  us  the  aspect  of  an  ancient  and  very  influential 
power,  oppressed  with  fiscal  embarrassments,  the  legacy  of  long  and  ex¬ 
hausting  wars,  putting  forth  at  one  and  the  same  time  efforts  for  material 
improvement,  and  still  mightier  ones  to  protect  its  imperfectly  combined 
dominion  from  dismemberment  and  disintegration,  seriously  menaced  from 
without,  aided  by  strong  and  intense  popular  passions  within.  With  these 
questions  the  government  of  the  United  States  has  and  can  have  no  concern. 
In  the  intercourse  of  nations  each  must  be  assumed  by  every  other  to  choose 
and  will  what  it  maintains,  tolerates,  or  allows  Any  other  than  a  course 
of  neutrality  would  tend  to  keep  human  society  continually  embroiled  in 
wars,  and  render  national  independence  everywhere  practically  impossible. 


COKRESPOXDEXCE. 


169 


No  institutions  which  can  be  established  in  a  country  through  foreign  inter¬ 
vention  can  give  to  it  security  or  other  advantages  equal  to  those  which  are 
afforded  by  the  system  it  establishes  or  permits  for  itself;  while  every  nation 
must  be  regarded  as  a  moral  person,  and  so  amenable  to  the  public  opinion 
of  mankind,  that  opinion  can  carry  its  decrees  into  effect  only  by  peaceful 
means  and  influences.  These  principles,  hitherto  practiced  by  the  United 
States  with  great  impartiality,  furnish  rules  for  the  conduct  of  their  repre¬ 
sentatives  abroad,  and  especially  for  your  own  in  the  critical  condition  of 
political  affairs  in  the  country  to  which  you  are  accredited. 

This  intimation  is  given  so  distinctly  because  an  observance  of  it  is  pe¬ 
culiarly  important  in  the  present  condition  of  our  domestic  affairs.  We  are 
just  entering  on  a  fearful  trial,  hitherto  not  only  unknown,  but  even  deemed 
impossible  by  all  who  have  not  been  supposed  to  regard  the  career  of  our 
country,  even  under  auspicious  indications,  with  morbid  distrust. 

Ambitious  and  discontented  partisans  have  raised  the  standard  of  insur¬ 
rection  and  organized  in  form  a  revolutionary  government.  Their  agents 
have  gone  abroad  to  seek,  under  the  name  of  recognition,  aid  and  assistance. 
In  this  case  imprudence  on  our  part  in  our  intercourse  with  foreign  nations 
might  provoke  injurious,  possibly  dangerous,  retaliation. 

The  President  does  not  by  any  means  apprehend  that  the  imperial  royal 
government  at  Vienna  will  be  inclined  to  listen  to  those  overtures.  The 
habitual  forbearance  of  his  Majesty,  the  friendship  which  happily  has  always 
existed  between  the  two  countries,  and  the  prudence  which  the  government 
of  the  former  has  so  long  practiced  in  regard  to  political  affairs  on  this  con¬ 
tinent,  forbid  any  such  apprehension. 

Should  our  confidence  in  this  respect,  however,  prove  to  be  erroneous,  the 
remarks  which  I  shall  have  occasion  to  make  with  a  different  view  in  this 
paper  will  furnish  you  with  the  grounds  on  which  to  stand  while  resisting 
and  opposing  any  such  application  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  of 
America. 

Vienna,  as  you  are  very  well  aware,  is  a  political  centre  in  continental 
Europe.  You  may  expect  to  meet  agents  of  disunion  there  seeking  to  mould 
public  opinion  for  effect  elsewhere. 

I  will  not  detain  you  with  a  history  of  that  reckless  movement,  or  with 
details  of  the  President’s  policy  in  regard  to  it.  Your  experience  as  a  prom¬ 
inent  member  of  Congress  has  already  furnished  the  former.  The  inaugural 
address  of  the  President,  with  despatches  to  your  predecessor,  will  be  found 
in  the  archives  of  the  legation,  and  will  supply  the  latter. 

Certainly  I  shall  not  need  to  anticipate  and  controvert  any  complaints  of 
injustice,  oppression,  or  wrong,  which  those  agents  may  prefer  against  their 
country  before  foreign  tribunals.  Practically,  the  discontented  party  itself 
administered  this  government  from  the  earliest  day  when  sedition  began  its 
incubation  until  the  insurgents  had  risen  and  organized  their  new  pro¬ 
visional  and  revolutionary  government.  Never,  in  the  history  of  the  human 
race,  has  revolution  been  so  altogether  without  cause,  or  met  with  forbear¬ 
ance,  patience,  and  gentleness  so  long. 

Nor  shall  I  notice  particularly  the  apprehensions  of  future  injustice  and 
oppression  which,  in  the  absence  of  real  cause,  are  put  forth  as  grounds  for 
the  insurrection.  The  revolutionists  will  find  it  very  hard  to  make  any 
European  sovereign,  or  even  any  European  subject,  understand  what  better 
or  further  guarantee  they  could  have  of  all  their  rights  of  person  and  property 
than  those  which  are  written  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  and 
which  have  never  been  by  the  government  of  the  United  States  broken  or  vio¬ 
lated  either  in  letter  or  in  spirit.  They  will  find  it  quite  as  difficult  to  make 
either  a  European  sovereign  or  subject  understand  how  they  can  rea- 


170 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


sonably  expect  to  improve  their  political  security  by  organizing  a  new 
government  under  a  constitution  containing  substantially  the  same  provi¬ 
sions  as  the  one  they  seek  to  overthrow. 

There  is  reason  to  apprehend  that  the  form  of  argument  which  the  agents 
alluded  to  will  chiefly  employ  will  be  an  assumption  that  the  independence 
and  sovereignty  of  the  new  and  irregular  authority  they  represent  is  already 
de  facto  established. 

If  this  were  true,  still  you  could  reply  that  no  public  interest  of  other 
States,  nor  even  any  such  interest  of  the  new  confederacy  itself  could  suffer 
by  a  delay  allowing  sufficient  time  for  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
fully  consulting  the  people,  to  acknowledge  in  the  first  instance  the  inde¬ 
pendence  so  claimed  to  have  been  established.  The  United  States  have  a 
right  to  require  such  delay  from  all  friendly  powers,  and  a  refusal  of  it 
would  be  an  act  offensive  to  their  dignity  and  manifestly  hostile.  There  is 
not  the  least  ground  to  assume  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
would  act  otherwise  than  wisely,  discreetly,  and  humanely,  when  it  should 
come  to  act  in  such  a  case.  Individual  caprice  finds  no  place  in  a  govern¬ 
ment  so  entirely  popular  as  ours,  and  partisan  excitement  sinks  in  great 
national  emergencies  here  before  the  calm  considerate  judgment  of  the 
American  people  pronouncing  upon  considerations  exclusively  of  their  own 
security,  freedom,  and  happiness.  They  would,  indeed,  regard  the  effectual 
dismemberment  of  the  Union  as  fatal  to  the  highest  hopes  which  humanity 
has  ever,  with  apparent  reason,  indulged.  But  they  are  not  visionary  nor 
impracticable,  and  they  will  not  lack  even  the  magnanimit}7  to  accept  the 
fact  of  their  ruin,  and  govern  themselves  in  conformit}7  with  it,  before  other 
nations  fraternally  disposed  need  to  intervene  to  reconcile  them,  or,  if  un¬ 
friendly,  to  profit  by  that  last  calamity. 

At  all  events  foreign  governments  may  be  expected  to  consult  their  own 
interests  and  welfare  in  regard  to  the  subject  in  question,  even  though  in¬ 
different  to  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  United  States.  A  premature 
declaration  of  recognition  by  any  foreign  State  would  be  direct  intervention, 
and  the  State  which  should  lend  it  must  be  prepared  to  assume  the  relations 
of  an  ally  of  the  projected  confederacy  and  employ  force  to  render  the  recog¬ 
nition  effectual. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  the  assumption  that  the  new  confederacy  has  established 
its  sovereignty  and  independence  is  altogether  unfounded.  It  was  projected, 
or  favored,  by  the  late  administration  during  the  four  months  that  it  remained 
in  power  after  the  election,  which  constituted  practically  an  interregnum. 
The  new  administration,  now  only  forty  days  old,  has  practiced  forbearance 
and  conciliation,  relying  hitherto,  as  it  will  hereafter  rely,  on  the  virtue  and 
patriotism  of  the  people  to  rescue  the  country  and  the  Union  from  danger  by 
peaceful  and  constitutional  means,  and  content  to  maintain  the  authority 
and  defend  the  positions  which  came  into  its  hands  on  the  fourth  of  March 
last,  without  employing  coercion,  so  unnatural,  and,  as  it  has  hitherto  believed 
and  still  believes,  so  unnecessary  for  the  national  security,  integrity,  and 
welfare.  The  so-called  confederacy  has  yet  to  secure  its  sovereignty  either 
by  war  or  by  peace.  If  it  shall,  as  now  seems  probable,  have  determined  on 
war,  it  has  only  just  thrown  down  the  challenge.  It  must  not  assume  that 
a  nation  so  sound,  so  vigorous,  and  so  strong  as  this,  although  it  may  for¬ 
bear  long,  will  not  accept  such  a  challenge  when  there  is  no  alternative. 

The  government  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  have  still  greater 
perils  to  incur  if  they  are  to  establish  their  separation  by  the  acts  and  pro¬ 
cesses  proper  for  peace.  They  will  have  at  some  time  to  refer  themselves 
and  all  their  action  to  an  intelligent  people,  who  will  then  have  had  time 
to  reflect  and  to  inquire  what  all  this  revolution  is  for,  and  what  go.od  it 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


171 


can  produce.  They  will  have  to  satisfy  that  people  and  mankind  that  a 
republican  government  can  be  stable  and  permanent  which  is  built  on  the 
principle  that  a  minority,  when  defeated  in  the  popular  elections,  may  appeal 
to  arms,  and  that  a  confederacy  can  be  relied  upon  by  creditors  or  nations 
that  admits  the  right  of  each  of  its  members  to  withdraw  from  it  and  cast  off 
its  obligations  at  pleasure. 

I  have  treated  the  subject  as  if  it  were  a  question  of  war  or  of  peace  in 
the  election  of  the  insurrectionists.  But,  in  truth,  both  the  justice  and  the 
wisdom  of  the  war  must  in  the  end  be  settled,  as  all  questions  which  concern 
the  American  people  must  be  determined,  not  by  arms,  but  by  suffrage. 
When,  at  last,  the  ballot  is  to  be  employed  after  the  sword,  then,  in  addition 
to  the  pregnant  questions  I  have  indicated,  two  further  ones  will  arise 
requiring  to  be  answered,  namely,  which  party  began  the  conflict,  and  which 
maintained  in  that  conflict  the  cause  of  freedom  and  humanity. 

The  agents  of  the  projected  confederacy  have  hitherto  affected  to  under¬ 
value  the  power  which  the  Union  can  exercise  for  self-preservation,  and  they 
may  attempt  to  mislead  foreign  States  on  this  subject.  It  is  true  that  the 
government  was  powerless  to  resist  them  so  long  as  it  was  practically  in 
their  own  hands  and  managed  to  favor  their  designs.  Its  executive  depart¬ 
ment  was  panic-stricken,  its  legislature  divided  and  distracted,  its  army 
demoralized  and  betrayed,  its  fortifications  virtually  surrendered,  its  navy 
dispersed,  and  its  credit  prostrated.  Even  the  people  themselves  were 
bewildered  by  the  sudden  appearance  of  such  unlooked-for  and  appalling 
dangers.  All  this  demoralization  is  passing  away  as  rapidly  as  it  came  on; 
and  it  will  soon  appear  in  this,  as  in  all  other  cases,  that  the  greatest  vigor 
is  found  combined  with  the  greatest  power  of  elasticity.  It  will  be  deeply 
to  be  regretted  if  the  energy  of  this  great  government  is  to  have  its  first 
serious  trial  in  a  civil  war,  instead  of  one  against  a  foreign  foe.  But  if  that 
trial  cannot  be  averted,  it  will  be  seen  that  resources  prudently  left  unem¬ 
barrassed  are  more  available  than  credit  in  foreign  markets;  that  the  loyalty 
of  a  brave  and  free  people  is  more  reliable  than  standing  armies;  that  a  good 
cause  is  worth  more  than  allies,  and  self-defence  is  an  attribute  stronger  than 
fortresses.  Its  assailants  will  have  to  defend  themselves  before  an  enl  i  fast¬ 
ened  people,  and  even  before  other  nations,  at  least  so  far  as  to  show  one 
State  that  the  federal  Union  has  actually  oppressed  or  menaced,  or  one 
citizen  who  fared  the  worse  for  having  lived  under  its  authority. 

The  agents  of  the  new  confederacy  it  is  supposed  will  offer  more  favorable 
conditions  to  foreign  commerce  than  the  United  States  have  thought  it  wise 
to  afford.  Such  offers  may  be  met  with  a  few  direct  propositions.  The 
sagacity  of  the  federal  government  is  not  likely  to  be  found  long  at  fault  in 
giving  such  advantages  to  the  insurrectionists.  In  the  second  place,  how 
is  a  revolution  to  be  carried  on  without  taxes  ?  Are  the  so-called  seceding 
States  abler  than  their  sister  States  to  endure  direct  taxation,  or  will  faction 
reconcile  men  to  burdens  that  patriotism  finds  intolerable?  It  will  be  well 
for  the  so-called  confederacy  if,  instead  of  making  good  the  promises  in  this 
respect  made  in  its  name,  it  do  not  find  itself  obliged  to  levy  duties  as  large 
as  those  of  the  federal  government  on  imports,  and  to  add  to  its  revenue 
system,  what  that  government  never  has  done,  the  ruinous  feature  of  taxa¬ 
tion  upon  exports.  It  is  easily  seen  how  little  such  a  financial  policy  will 
commend  the  new  government  to  the  favor  of  European  politicians  and 
capitalists. 

But  I  must  draw  these  instructions  to  a  close.  You  will  on  all  occasions 
represent  that  the  interests  of  Europe  and  of  mankind  demand  peace,  and 
especially  peace  on  this  continent.  The  Union  is  the  only  guarantee  of 
peace.  Intervention  would  be  war,  and  disunion  would  be  only  endless 

war. 


172 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  Union  is,  moreover,  the  chief  security  for  the  stability  of  nations. 
When  this  experiment  of  self-government  shall  have  failed  for  want  of 
wisdom  and  virtue  enough,  either  at  home  or  abroad,  to  preserve  it  or 
permit  it  to  exist,  the  people  of  other  countries  may  well  despair  and  lose 
the  patience  they  have  practiced  so  long  under  different  systems  in  the 
expectation  that  the  influence  it  was  slowly  exercising  would  ultimately 
bring  them  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  rights  of  self-government.  When  that 
patience  disappears,  anarchy  must  come  upon  the  earth. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Anson  Burlingame,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Jones  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 


No.  20.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Vienna,  April  15,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular,  dated 
the  9th  of  March,  1861. 

I  presented  the  copy  of  the  inaugural  address  of  the  President  to  Count 
Rechberg  on  the  8th  day  of  April,  and  at  the  same  time  verbally  communi¬ 
cated,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  contained  in  said  despatch,  the 
views  and  opinions  of  my  government  on  the  present  disturbed  condition  of 
its  domestic  affairs,  and  the  aspect  in  which  it  wished  them  to  be  regarded 
by  the  government  of  Austria. 

He  replied  that  Austria  hoped  to  see  us  re-united.  That  she  was  not  in¬ 
clined  to  recognize  de  facto  governments  anywhere;  her  opinions  had  been 
made,  however,  and  her  minister  and  consuls  in  America  instructed  fully  on 
the  subject;  that  no  application  had  yet  been  made  to  Austria  for  recogni¬ 
tion  as  an  independent  sovereignty,  by  any  portion  of  the  confederacy  of 
the  United  States,  and  he  was  of  opinion  that,  as  the  views  of  Austria  would 
soon  be  known  on  the  subject,  no  such  application  would  be  made.  Should 
it  be  otherwise,  however,  he  would  notify  this  legation  and  the  subject 
could  be  resumed. 

>J/  vi»  <J/  \1/  vlx  V*-r  vL 

»|'  /jV  /f* 


Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


J.  GLANCY  JONES. 


Mr.  Jones  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  22.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Vienna ,  July  20,  1861. 

Sir:  A  few  days  since  Count  Rechberg,  the  imperial  royal  minister  of 
foreign  affairs,  was  interrogated  in  the  house  of  deputies  of  the  Austrian 
empire  on  the  subject  of  the  course  pursued,  or  about  to  be  pursued,  by  the 
imperial  royal  government  in  relation  to  American  affairs  in  the  present 
complication.  The  report  of  his  remarks  is  as  follows: 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


173 


Count  Rechberg  rose  to  answer  the  question,  “What  measures  has  the 
government  taken  to  protect  its  commercial  relations  with  the  United  States 
of  North  America,  under  the  warlike  condition  of  things  now  existing  there,” 
put  by  Mr.  Putzer  and  his  associates.  He  said:  “The  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  has,  in  connexion  with  the  ministers  of  trade  and  the  navy,  caused 
information  to  be  obtained  through  the  imperial  minister  resident  at  Wash¬ 
ington  as  to  the  measures  which  other  governments  have  taken  for  the  same 
reason.  The  answer  received  was,  that  England  and  France,  as  well  as 
Holland,  had  strengthened  their  squadrons  in  the  American  waters,  and  had 
endeavored  to  bring  the  belligerent  powers  to  the  recognition  of  those  prin¬ 
ciples,  especially  relating  to  the  protection  of  private  property,  which  were 
agreed  upon  at  the  congress  of  Paris  in  1856.  The  imperial  government 
has,  for  the  present,  abstained  from  sending  ships-of-war,  and  has  directed 
the  minister  resident  to  obtain  from  the  belligerent  powers  the  recognition 
of  the  following  points  established  by  the  said  congress: 

“  1.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

“  2.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable 
to  capture  under  enemy’s  flag. 

“3.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective;  that  is  to  say, 
maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the 
enemy. 

“  The  government  hopes,  on  account  of  the  friendly  relations  which  have 
existed  between  it  and  the  American  States  for  years,  to  obtain  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  these  three  points  on  the  part  of  the  belligerents.” 

In  an  interview  with  Count  Rechberg  a  day  or  two  ago,  he  expressed  to 
me  a  hope  that  the  answer  might  be  deemed  satisfactory  to  my  government, 
as  it  was  his  wish  to  make  it  so.  I  replied  that,  so  far  as  I  was  advised,  no 
exception  could  be  taken  to  his  language,  but  that  I  should  transmit  to  my 
government  both  the  question  and  answer,  and  if  they  had  anything  to  say 
they  would  make  it  known  to  him  through  their  minister  here.  He  repeated 
his  strong  desire  to  see  the  integrity  of  the  Union  preserved  in  America,  and 
said  Austria  was  anxious  to  cultivate  the  most  friendly  relations  with  us, 
and  would  be  the  last  to  aid  or  abet  any  movement  looking  to  the  disruption 
of  our  confederacy,  or  weakening  its  power. 

Very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  GLANCY  JONES. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Mr.  H'dlsemann  to  Mr.  Seward. 


Austrian  Legation, 
Washington,  August  7,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  in  pursuance  of  the  understanding  come  to  this  morning, 
has  the  honor  to  transmit  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State  a  copy  of  the 
instructions  received  from  Count  Rechberg  concerning  the  maritime  rights 
of  neutrals  in  time  of  war;  and  he  takes  this  opportunity  to  renew  his  offer 
of  high  consideration  to  the  honorable  Secretary  of  State 

HULSEMANN. 

Hon.  William  II.  Sew^RO, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


174 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Baron  Bechberg  to  Mr.  Hulsemann. 

[Translation.] 

No.  6993. — H.]  Vienna,  July  1,  1861. 

Sir:  With  deep  regret  we  continue  to  follow  events  in  the  United  States 
which,  shaking  the  foundations  of  the  Union,  have  effectively  taken  the 
character  of  an  active  warfare  between  powers;  whence  it  has  ensued  that 
friendly  nations,  for  the  protection  of  their  own  commerce  and  navigation, 
are  placed  reluctantly  in  such  position  that  they  must  reclaim  their  rights 
as  neutrals. 

You  already  know  by  my  despatch  of  14th  June  of  last  year  what  princi¬ 
ples  of  international  law  bearing  upon  the  questions  of  maritime  rights  in 
time  of  war  we  relied  upon  as  between  us  and  the  government  of  the  Union, 
whether  under  the  provisions  of  old  treaties,  or  under  more  recent  arrange¬ 
ments;  inasmuch  as  we  have  given  our  adhesion  to  the  Paris  declaration  of 
maritime  rights  in  1856,  as  tending  to  improve  the  heretofore  ill-advised 
mode  of  dealing  with  the  political  fluctuations  that  lie  before  us. 

Albeit  the  government  of  the  Union  did  not  explicitly  and  at  once  accept, 
upon  the  first  invitation,  the  declaration  of  the  European  powers,  yet  we 
still  entertain  an  earnest  expectation  that  such  subsequent  express  assent 
may  be  given,  as  the  abrogation  of  ail  hindrance  to  the  security  of  private 
property  on  the  seas  was  established  on  the  broadest  grounds. 

By  a  proposal  which,  unfortunately,  was  not  accepted  on  the  other  side, 
we,  however,  as  you  know,  were  always  ready  and  willing  to  sustain  the 
principle. 

We  await,  however,  in  friendly  expectation,  at  least,  the  express  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  second,  third,  and  fourth  principles  of  the  Paris  declaration  on 
the  part  of  the  United  States  quite  distinctly  from  that,  because  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Union,  on  different  occasions,  has  not  only  plainly  expressed 
these  principles  in  manner  more  or  less  forcible,  but  has  upon  its  own 
motion  set  them  forth  and  explicitly  maintained  them. 

We  therefore  rest  securely  in  the  belief  that  we  may  soon  receive  a  satis¬ 
factory  communication  upon  this  subject,  and  that  under  the  high  authority 
of  the  President,  administering  the  relations  of  his  government,  the  above 
mentioned  three  principles  will  be  authentically  asserted  by  the  United 
States.  But  you  also  have  it  in  express  charge  to  invite  the  earnest  atten¬ 
tion  of  the  Secretary  of  State  to  the  matter,  and  to  take  the  same  steps  as 
we  see  reason  to  adopt  with  the  other  European  powers  in  what  may  be 
regarded  as  definitively  settled. 

You  will,  I  hope,  carry  this  important  question  through  to  a  favorable 
close,  and  I  present  you  the  assurances  of  my  cordial  sympathies. 

RECHBERG. 

His  Excellency  the  Chevalier  Hulsemann,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc ,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Hulsemann. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington ,  August  22,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  has  the 
honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  communication  from  Mr.  Hiilsemann, 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


175 


minister  resident  of  his  imperial  royal  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Austria, 
hearing  date  7th  August,  instant.  Mr.  Hiilsemann’s  letter  is  accompanied 
by  an  instruction  sent  to  him  by  Count  Rechberg,  the  Austrian  minister  for 
foreign  affairs,  calling  for  information  on  the  subject  of  the  views  of  this 
government  concerning  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime  war.  Count 
Rechberg  expresses  a  hope  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  will 
give  assurances  that  it  adopts  and  will  apply  the  2d,  3d,  and  4th  principles 
of  the  declaration  of  Paris,  viz: 

2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

3.  Neutral  goods,  wdth  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable 
to  capture  under  enemy’s  flag. 

4.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective;  that  is  to  say, 
maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the 
enemy. 

The  undersigned  has  great  pleasure  in  assuring  Mr.  Hiilsemann  that  this 
government  does  adopt,  and  that  it  will  apply  the  principles  thus  recited 
and  set  forth,  and  that  its  liberal  views  in  this  respect  have  not  only  been 
long  held,  but  they  would  have  been  formally  communicated  to  the  Austrian 
government  several  months  ago  but  for  the  delay  which  has  unavoidably 
occurred  in  the  arrival  of  a  newly  appointed  minister  plenipotentiary  at 
Vienna. 

Of  course  the  principles  referred  to  are  understood  by  the  United  States 
as  not  compromitting  their  right  to  close  any  of  their  own  ports  for  the 
purpose  of  suppressing  the  existing  insurrection  in  certain  of  the  States, 
either  directly  or  in  the  more  lenient  and  equitable  form  of  blockade  which  has 
already  for  some  time  been  established. 

Mr.  Motley,  who  proceeds  immediately  to  Vienna  as  envoy  extraordinary 
and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States,  will  be  directly  advised 
of  this  communication,  while  he  will  be  charged  with  more  ample  instruc¬ 
tions  on  the  general  subject  involved. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  tender  assurances  of 
the  good  will  of  this  government  towards  the  government  of  Austria,  and 
of  his  distinguished  consideration  for  Mr.  Hiilsemann  personally. 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

The  Chevalier  Hulsemann,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Jones. 

No.  14.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  12,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  20th  of  July,  No.  22,  has  just  been  received. 

Owing  to  the  change  of  Air.  Burlingame’s  destination,  the  instructions  he 
conveyed  have  failed  to  reach  your  legation.  •  A  new  appointment  has  just 
now  been  made  in  the  person  of  Mr.  Motley,  who  will,  without  much  delay, 
proceed  to  relieve  you  of  the  mission  which  you  have  conducted  so  satis¬ 
factorily  during  the  period  of  my  connexion  with  this  department. 

Mr.  Motley  will  have  full  powers  to  treat  with  the  government  of  Austria 
on  all  the  matters  discussed  by  Count  Rechberg  in  the  speech  to  which,  by 
his  direction,  you  have  called  my  attention,  and  I  am  sure  that  they  will  be 
disposed  of  to  the  entire  satisfaction  of  Austria,  as  well  as  for  the  common 
advantage  of  both  countries. 


176 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


In  the  meantime,  however,  you  are  authorized  to  say  to  Count  Rechberg 
that  the  United  States  adhere  now,  as  heretofore,  to  the  three  principles 
enunciated  by  him  in  that  speech,  namely: 

1.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

2.  Neutral  goods,  not  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable  to  confiscation 
under  enemy’s  flag. 

3.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective. 

Of  course  these  principles  are  understood  by  us  as  not  compromitting  our 
right  to  close  any  of  our  own  ports  for  the  purpose  of  suppressing  the  exist¬ 
ing  insurrection,  either  directly  or  in  the  more  lenient  and  equitable  form 
of  blockade  which  we  have  already  some  time  since  established. 

You  will  not  fail  to  assure  the  imperial  royal  government  that  the  Presi¬ 
dent  had  received  with  great  satisfaction  the  assurances  of  the  just  pur¬ 
poses  and  good  will  of  Austria  towards  the  United  States,  communicated 
by  Count  Rechberg  to  yourself,  and  repeated  by  Mr.  Hulsemann,  the  minister 
of  Austria  residing  at  this  capital. 

It  shall  be  our  purpose  to  cultivate  the  best  understanding  with  all 
nations  which  respect  our  rights  as  Austria  does. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

J.  Glaxcy  Jones,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Motley. 

No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  2T,  1861. 

Sir:  The  despatch  of  your  predecessor,  Mr.  Jones,  No.  23,  dated  August 
6,  has  been  received  and  read  with  much  interest.  It  relates,  however, 
exclusively  to  the  affairs  of  Austria,  and  does  not  seem  to  require  any 
special  remark  from  me  at  the  present  moment,  when  the  attention  of  this 
department  is  so  largely  engrossed  by  the  concerns  of  our  own  country  at 
home  as  well  as  in  foreign  countries. 

Should  Mr.  Jones  be  still  remaining  at  Vienna  when  this  communication 
arrives,  you  will  express  to  him  the  entire  satisfaction  with  which  his  con¬ 
duct  of  the  legation  since  it  has  fallen  under  the  review  of  the  present 
administration  is  regarded  by  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

J.  Lothrop  Motley,  Esq.,  fye.,  fyc.,  Vienna. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Motley. 

No.  4.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  20,  1861. 

Sir:  The  despatch,  No.  24,  of  your  predecessor,  Mr.  Jones,  under  date  of 
August,  has  been  received.  I  send  you  a  copy  of  my  latest  instructions  to 
Mr.  Adams  and  Mr.  Dayton  on  the  subject  of  the  proposed  accession  to  the 
declaration  of  the  congress  at  Paris.  You  will  learn  from  these  papers  that 
the  negotiations  for  that  object  with  the  governments  of  Great  Britain  and 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


177 


France  have  been  arrested,  as  well  as  the  manner  of  suspension,  and  the 
reasons  for  it.  You  will  already  have  discovered  for  yourself  that  this  sus¬ 
pension  of  the  negotiation  with  those  two  powers  must  operate,  to  a  certain 
extent,  upon  the  dispositions  in  the  same  respect  of  other  European  States, 
although  it  does  not  at  all  modify  the  views  of  this  government.  So  far  as 
such  other  European  powers  are  concerned,  all  that  remains  to  be  said  is, 
that  acting  in  good  faith  we  will  cheerfully  enter  into  convention  with  any 
State  that  may  desire  to  receive  our  accession  at  this  time,  and  that  we 
shall  not,  at  present,  urge  our  proposition  on  those  States  which,  for  any 
reason  of  their  own,  may  propose  to  await  a  more  convenient  season. 

You  will  inform  Count  Rechberg  that  the  friendly  sentiments  of  this  gov¬ 
ernment  towards  Austria  remain  unchanged. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

J.  Lothrop  Motley,  Esq.,  &fc.,  fyv.,  fyc.,  Vienna. 


4 


■ 


« 


FRANCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  22,  1861. 

Sir:  Yon  enter  a  very  important  foreign  mission  at  a  moment  when  our 
domestic  affairs  have  reached  a  crisis  which  awakens  deep  solicitude. 
Throughout  a  period  of  eighty  years  law  and  order  have  prevailed,  and  in¬ 
ternal  peace  and  tranquillity  have  been  undisturbed.  Five  months  ago 
sedition  showed  itself  openly  in  several  of  the  southern  States,  and  it  has 
acted  ever  since  that  time  with  boldness,  skill,  and  energy.  An  insurrec¬ 
tionary  government,  embracing  seven  members  of  this  Union,  has  been  pro¬ 
claimed  under  the  name  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America.  That 
pretended  authority,  by  means  chiefly  of  surprise,  easily  seen  here  to  have 
been  unavoidable,  although  liable  to  be  misunderstood  abroad,  has  possessed 
itself  of  a  navy  yard,  several  fortifications  and  arsenals,  and  considerable 
quantities  of  arms,  ordnance,  and  military  stores.  On  the  12tli  of  April, 
instant,  its  forces  commenced  an  attack  upon,  and  ultimately  carried,  Fort 
Sumter,  against  the  brave  and  heroic  resistance  of  a  diminutive  garrison, 
which  had  been,  through  the  neglect  of  the  former  administration,  left  in  a 
condition  to  prevent  supplies  and  re-enforcements. 

Owing  to  the  very  peculiar  construction  of  our  system,  the  late  adminis¬ 
tration,  Congress,  and  every  other  department  of  the  federal  government, 
including  the  army  and  the  navy,  contained  agents,  abettors,  and  sympa¬ 
thizers  in  this  insurrection.  The  federal  authorities  thus  became  inefficient, 
while  large  portions  of  the  people  were  bewildered  by  the  suddenness  of 
the  appearance  of  disunion,  by  apprehension  that  needless  resistance  might 
aggravate  and  precipitate  the  movement,  and  by  political  affinities  with 
those  engaged  in  it. 

The  project  of  dismembering  the  Union  doubtless  has  some  support  in 
commercial  and  political  ambition.  But  it  is  chiefly  based  upon  a  local, 
though  widely  extended  partisan  disappointment  in  the  result  of  the  recent 
election  of  President  of  the  United  States.  It  acquired  strength  for  a  time 
from  its  assumed  character  of  legitimate  opposition  to  a  successful  party, 
while,  on  the  other  hand,  that  party  could  not  all  at  once  accept  the  fact  that 
an  administrative  political  issue  had  given  place  to  one  which  involved  the 
very  existence  of  the  government  and  of  the  Union.  These  embarrassments 
are  passing  away  so  rapidly  as  to  indicate  that  far  the  greater  mass  of  the 
people  remain  loyal  as  heretofore.  The  President  improved  the  temporary 
misfortune  of  the  fall  of  Fort  Sumter  by  calling  on  the  militia  of  the  States 
to  re-enforce  the  federal  army,  and  summoning  Congress  for  its  counsel  and 
aid  in  the  emergency.  On  the  other  hand,  the  insurrectionists  have  met 
those  measures  with  an  invitation  to  privateers  from  all  lands  to  come 
forth  and  commit  depredations  on  the  commerce  of  the  country. 

To  take  care  that  the  government  of  his  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  France 
do  not  misunderstand  our  position,  and  through  that  misunderstanding  do 


180 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


us  some  possible  wrong,  is  the  chief  duty  which  you  will  have  to  perform  at 
Paris. 

It  would  have  been  gratifying  to  the  President  if  the  movements  to  which 
I  have  alluded  had  taken  such  a  course  as  to  leave  this  government  free 
from  the  necessity  in  any  event  of  conferring  upon  them  in  the  presence  of 
foreign  powers.  In  this  age  of  social  development,  however,  isolation  even 
in  misfortune  is  impossible,  and  every  attempt  at  revolution  in  one  country 
becomes  a  subject  of  discussion  in  every  other.  The  agitators  in  this  case 
have,  perhaps,  not  unnaturally  carried  their  bad  cause  before  foreign  states 
by  an  appeal  for  recognition  of  the  independence  they  have  proclaimed,  and 
which  they  are  committed  to  establish  by  arms.  Prudence  requires  that 
we  oppose  that  appeal.  The  President  believes  that  you  will  be  able  to  do 
this  in  such  a  manner  as  will  at  once  comport  with  the  high  consideration 
for  his  Imperial  Majesty  which  this  government  habitually  entertains,  and 
a  due  sense  of  the  dignity  and  honor  of  the  American  people. 

The  Emperor  of  France  has  given  abundant  proofs  that  he  considers  the 
people  in  every  country  the  rightful  source  of  all  authority,  and  that  its 
only  legitimate  objects  are  their  safety,  freedom,  and  welfare.  He  is  versed 
in  our  Constitution,  and,  therefore,  he  will  not  need  demonstration  that  the 
svstem  which  is  established  by  the  Constitution  is  founded  strictlv  on  those 
very  principles.  You  will  be  at  no  loss  to  show  also  that  it  is  perfectly 
adapted  to  the  physical  condition  and  the  temper,  spirit,  and  habits  of  the 
American  people.  In  all  its  essential  features  it  is  the  same  system  which 
was  first  built,  and  has  since  existed  with  ever  renewed  popular  consent  in 
this  part  of  America.  The  people  of  this  country  have  always  enjoyed  the 
personal  rights  guaranteed  by  the  great  statutes  of  British  freedom,  repre¬ 
sentation  concurrent  with  taxation,  jury  trial,  liberty  of  conscience,  equality 
before  the  laws,  and  popular  suffrage.  The  element  of  federation  or  union 
was  early  developed  while  the  colonies  were  under  the  authority  of,  and 
during  their  revolutionary  contest  with,  the  British  Crown,  and  was  perfected 
afterwards  by  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 
Practically  it  has  been  voluntarily  accepted  by  every  State,  Territory,  and 
individual  citizen  of  the  United  States.  The  working  of  the  system  has 
been  complete^  successful,  while  not  one  square  mile  of  domain  that  we  at 
any  time  had  occupied  has  ever  been  lost  to  us.  We  have  extended  our 
jurisdiction  from  the  St.  Mary’s  river  to  the  Rio  Grande,  on  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  and  in  a  wide  belt  from  the  Mississippi  to  the  Pacific  ocean.  Our 
population  has  swollen  from  four  millions  to  thirty-one  millions.  The  num¬ 
ber  of  our  States  has  increased  from  thirteen  to  thirty-four.  Our  country  has 
risen  from  insignificance  to  be  the  second  in  the  world.  Leaving  out  of 
view  unimportant  local  instances  of  conflict,  we  have  had  only  two  foreign 
wars,  and  the  aggregate  duration  of  them  was  less  than  five  years.  Not 
one  human  life  has  hitherto  been  forfeited  for  disloyalty  to  the  government, 
nor  has  martial  law  ever  been  established  except  temporarily  in  case  of 
invasion.  No  other  people  have  ever  enjoyed  so  much  immunity  from  the 
various  forms  of  political  casualties  and  calamities. 

While  there  is  not  now,  even  in  the  midst  of  the  gathering  excitement  of 
civil  war,  one  American  who  declares  his  dissent  from  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution,  that  great  charter  of  federal  authority  has  won  the  approba¬ 
tion  of  the  civilized  world.  Many  nations  have  taken  it  as  a  model,  and 
almost  every  other  one  has  in  some  degree  conformed  its  institutions  to  the 
principles  of  this  Constitution.  The  empire  of  France,  and  the  new  kingdom 
of  Italy  especially,  are  built  on  the  same  broad  foundation  with  that  of  this 
federal  republic,  namely,  universal  suffrage. 

Surely  we  cannot  err  in  assuming  that  a  system  of  government  which 
arose  out  of  the  free  consent  of  the  people  of  this  country,  which  has  been 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


181 


often  reconsidered  and  yet  continually  upheld  in  preference  to  every  other 
throughout  a  period  of  two  hundred  years,  which  has  commanded  the  accept¬ 
ance  or  the  approval  of  all  other  nations,  and  to  the  principles  of  which 
even  those  who  attempt  to  overthrow  it  adhere  in  the  very  heat  of  insurrec¬ 
tion,  must  be  regarded  as  one  which  is  not  only  well  adapted  to  the  condi¬ 
tion  and  character  of  the  American  people,  but  is  even  indispensable  and 
inseparable  from  their  national  existence. 

Should  it  be  answered  that  while  all  this  lias  heretofore  seemed  true,  vet 
that  it  is  now  disproved  by  the  existing  insurrection,  you  may  truthfully 
reply  that  we  must  wait  for  that  refutation  until  we  see  the  end  of  the  in¬ 
surrection;  that  the  insurrection  proves  in  fact  nothing  else  except  that 
eighty  years  of  peace  is  as  much  as  human  nature  has  the  moderation  to 
endure  under  circumstances  the  most  conducive  to  moderation. 

The  attempted  revolution  is  simply  causeless.  It  is,  indeed,  equally 
without  a  reason  and  without  an  object.  Confessedly  there  is  neither 
reason  nor  object,  unless  it  be  one  arising  out  of  the  subject  of  slavery.  The 
practice  of  slavery  has  been  so  long  a  theme  of  angry  political  debate,  while 
it  has  all  the  time  been,  as  it  yet  is,  a  domestic  concern,  that  I  approach  it 
with  deep  regret  in  a  communication  which  relates  to  the  action  of  a  repre¬ 
sentative  of  this  government  abroad.  I  refrain  from  any  observation  what¬ 
ever  concerning  the  morality  or  the  immorality,  the  economy  or  the  waste, 
the  social  or  the  unsocial  aspects  of  slavery,  and  confine  myself,  by  direc¬ 
tion  of  the  President,  strictly  to  the  point  that  the  attempt  at  revolution  on 
account  of  it  is,  as  I  have  already  said,  without  reason  and  without  object. 
Slavery  of  persons  of  African  derivation  existed  practically  within  all  the 
European  colonies  which,  as  States,  now  constitute  the  United  States  of 
America.  The  framers  of  our  government  accepted  that  fact,  and  with  it 
the  ideas  concerning  it  which  were  then  gaining  ground  throughout  the 
civilized  world.  They  expected  and  desired  that  it  should  ultimately  cease, 
and  with  that  view  authorized  Congress  to  prohibit  the  foreign  slave  trade 
after  1808.  They  did  not  expect  that  the  practice  of  African  slavery  should 
be  abruptly  terminated  to  the  prejudice  of  the  peace  and  the  economy  of  the 
country.  They  therefore  placed  the  entire  control  of  slavery,  as  it  was  then 
existing,  beyond  the  control  of  the  federal  authorities,  by  leaving  it  to 
remain  subject  to  the  exclusive  management  and  disposition  of  the  several 
States  themselves,  and  fortified  it  there  with  a  provision  for  the  return  of 
fugitives  from  labor  and  service,  and  another  securing  an  allowance  of  three - 
filths  of  such  persons  in  fixing  the  basis  of  direct  taxation  and  representa¬ 
tion.  The  legislators  of  that  day  took  notice  of  the  existence  of  a  vast  and 
nearly  unoccupied  region  lying  between  the  western  borders  of  the  Atlantic 
States  and  the  Mississippi  river.  A  few  slaves  were  found  in  the  south¬ 
west,  and  none  in  the  northwest.  They  left  the  matter  in  the  southwest  to 
the  discretion  of  the  new  States  to  be  formed  there,  and  prohibited  the 
practice  of  slavery  in  the  northwestern  region  forever. 

Economical,  moral,  and  political  causes  have  subsequently  modified  the 
sentiments  of  that  age  differently  in  the  two  sections.  Long  ago  slavery 
was  prohibited  by  all  the  northern  States,  and,  on  the  contrary,  the  increased 
production  of  cotton  has  resulted  in  fortifying  the  institution  of  slavery  in 
the  southern  States.  The  accretions  of  domain,  by  purchase  from  Spain, 
France,  and  Mexico,  brought  regions  in  which  slavery  had  either  a  very 
slight  foothold,  or  none  at  all;  and  this  new  domain,  as  it  should  come  under 
occupation,  was  to  be  constituted  into  new  States,  which  must  be  either 
free  States  or  slave  States.  The  original  States  divided  according  to  their 
own  divers  practices — the  free  States  seeking  so  to  direct  federal  legisla¬ 
tion  and  action  as  to  result  in  multiplying  free  States,  and  the  slave  States 
so  to  direct  them  as  to  multiply  slave  States.  The  interest  became  more 


182 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


intense  because  the  several  States  have  equal  representation  in  the  Senate 
of  the  United  States.  This  controversy  soon  disclosed  itself  in  the  popular 
elections,  and  more  distinctly  than  ever  before  in  the  recent  canvass,  which 
resulted  in  the  accession  of  the  present  administration. 

It  is  now  to  be  observed  that,  from  the  earliest  agitation  of  the  subject 
until  that  last  election,  the  decisions  of  the  people  were  practically  favor¬ 
able  to  the  interest  of  the  class  which  favored  the  extension  of  slavery,  and 
yet  their  opponents  always  acquiesced.  Under  these  circumstances  the 
executive  administration,  the  national  legislature,  and  the  judiciary,  were 
for  practical  purposes  in  the  hands  of  that  party,  and  the  laws,  with  the  ad¬ 
ministration  and  execution  of  them,  conformed  to  their  own  policy.  The 
opposite  class  prevailed  in  the  late  election  so  far  as  to  bring  in  the  Presi¬ 
dent  and  Vice-President,  the  citizens  they  had  preferred,  but  no  further — 
Congress  and  the  judiciary  remained  under  the  same  bias  as  before.  The 
new  President  could  not  assume  his  trust  until  the  fourth  of  March,  1861, 
and  even  after  that  time,  as  before,  the  laws  and  the  execution  of  them  must 
remain  unchanged.  He  could  not,  without  consent  of  his  opponents  in  Con¬ 
gress,  change  either,  nor  appoint  a  minister  or  a  ministerial  officer,  nor 
draw  a  dollar  from  the  treasury  even  for  his  own  defence  or  support.  It 
was  under  these  circumstances  that,  on  the  very  day  when  the  election 
closed  and  its  result  became  known,  four  months  before  the  new  adminis¬ 
tration  was  to  come  in,  the  disappointed  party  took  their  appeal  from  the 
ballot-box  to  arms,  and  inaugurated  their  revolution. 

I  need  not  further  elaborate  the  proposition  that  the  revolution  is  without 
a  cause  ;  it  has  not  even  a  pretext. 

It  is  just  as  clear  that  it  is  without  an  object  Moral  and  physical  causes 
have  determined  inflexibly  the  character  of  each  one  of  the  Territories  over 
which  the  dispute  has  arisen,  and  both  parties  after  the  election  harmo¬ 
niously  agreed  on  all  the  federal  laws  required  for  their  organization.  The 
Territories  will  remain  in  all  respects  the  same,  whether  the  revolution 
shall  succeed  or  shall  fail.  The  condition  of  slavery  in  the  several  States 
will  remain  just  the  same  whether  it  succeed  or  fail.  There  is  not  even  a 
pretext  for  the  complaint  that  the  disaffected  States  are  to  be  conquered  by 
the  United  States  if  the  revolution  fail  ;  for  the  rights  of  the  States,  and  the 
condition  of  every  human  being  in  them,  will  remain  subject  to  exactly  the 
same  laws  and  forms  of  administration,  whether  the  revolution  shall  succeed 
or  whether  it  shall  fail.  In  the  one  case,  the  States  would  be  federally  con¬ 
nected  with  the  new  confederacy  ;  in  the  other,  they  would,  as  now,  be  mem¬ 
bers  of  the  United  States  ;  but  their  constitutions  and  laws,  customs, 
habits,  and  institutions  in  either  case  will  remain  the  same. 

It  is  hardly  necessary  to  add  to  this  incontestible  statement  the  further 
fact  that  the  new  President,  as  well  as  the  citizens  through  whose  suf¬ 
frages  he  has  come  into  the  administration,  has  always  repudiated  all  de¬ 
signs  whatever  and  wherever  imputed  to  him  and  them  of  disturbing  the 
system  of  slavery  as  it  is  existing  under  the  Constitution  and  laws.  The 
case,  however,  would  not  be  fully  presented  if  I  were  to  omit  to  say  that  any 
such  effort  on  his  part  would  be  unconstitutional,  and  all  his  actions  in  that 
direction  would  be  prevented  by  the  judicial  authority,  even  though  they  were 
assented  to  by  Congress  and  the  people. 

This  revolution,  thus  equally  destitute  of  just  cause  and  legitimate  object, 
aims,  nevertheless,  at  the  dismemberment  of  the  federal  Union,  and,  if  suc¬ 
cessful,  must  end  in  the  overthrow  of  the  government  of  the  United  States. 
If  it  be  true,  as  the  consent  of  mankind  authorizes  us  to  assume,  that  the 
establishment  of  this  government  was  the  most  auspicious  political  event 
that  has  happened  in  the  whole  progress  of  history,  its  fall  must  be  deemed 
not  merely  a  national  calamity,  which  a  patriotic  government  ought  to  try 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


183 


to  prevent,  but  a  misfortune  to  the  human  race,  which  should  secure  for  us 
at  least  the  forbearance  of  all  other  nations. 

It  cannot  be  maintained  that  disunion  would  leave  it  still  existing  in  its 
true  character,  and  for  its  proper  ends,  although  in  two  not  very  unequal  and 
similar  parts.  Its  integrity  as  a  federal  government,  embracing  all  of  the 
American  independent,  contiguous,  and  homogeneous  States,  protecting  them 
all  against  foreign  dangers  and  internal  commotions  ;  securing  to  them  all 
a  common  property,  greatness,  dignity,  influence  and  happiness,  is  an  indis¬ 
pensable  feature  of  its  constitution. 

Dismemberment  would  be  less  effectually  subversive  of  the  character, 
objects,  and  purposes  of  the  Union,  if  the  two  confederacies,  which  it  is 
proposed  shall  succeed  it,  could  severally  be  expected  to  exercise  its  great 
functions  within  their  respective  dominions.  But  this  would  be  impossible. 
The  several  States  are  now  held  in  union  with  each  other  by  a  confessed  obli¬ 
gation  of  cohesion  that  only  their  common  consent  could  dissolve,  and  that 
mord  law,  hitherto  acknowledged  by  all,  is  substituted  for  the  central  mili¬ 
tary  authority  wdiich,  in  other  systems,  secures  the  integrity  as  well  as  the 
peact  and  harmony  of  States.  But  if  the  revolution  shall  prevail  and  dis- 
memlerment  ensue,  the  federal  obligation  in  that  case  will  be  broken,  its 
mora!  force  spent,  and  in  its  place  there  must  come  up  the  principles  which 
are  tie  acknowledged  elements  of  the  revolution,  namely,  first,  that  in  either 
confederacy  each  State  is  at  liberty  to  secede  at  pleasure  ;  and  secondly,  the 
minoriy  in  each  confederacy,  and  even  in  each  State,  may,  whenever  the 
will  of  lie  majority  is  ascertained,  take  an  appeal  from  the  ballot  to  the 
sword.  It  is  manifest  that  the  success  of  this  revolution  would  therefore  be 
not  onlja  practical  overthrow  of  the  entire  system  of  government,  but  the 
first  stare  by  each  confederacy  in  the  road  to  anarchy,  such  as  so  widely 
prevails  n  Spanish  America.  The  contest,  then,  involves  nothing  less  than 
a  failure  if  the  hope  to  devise  a  stable  system  of  government  upon  the  prin¬ 
ciple  of  te  consent  of  the  people,  and  working  through  the  peaceful  expres¬ 
sions  of  teir  will  without  depending  on  military  authority.  If  the  President 
were  addessing  his  countrymen  at  home  on  this  occasion,  instead  of  one  of 
their  reprsentatives  going  abroad,  he  would  direct  me  to  set  forth  the  con¬ 
sequences  which  obviously  must  follow  the  dissolution  of  the  American 
Union.  Te  loss  of  the  ambition,  which  is  a  needful  inspiration  to  a  great 
people;  thtloss  of  the  respect  of  mankind,  and  the  veneration  and  respect  of 
posterity;  ie  loss  of  the  enterprise  and  vigor  which  makes  us  a  prosperous 
nation;  am  with  the  loss  of  sustained  and  constant  culture,  which  makes  us 
an  intellectal  people,  the  loss  of  safety,  both  at  home  and  abroad,  which 
directly  inxlves  the  greatest  calamity  of  all,  the  loss  of  liberty  It  is  suffi¬ 
cient  only  tcallude  to  these  possible  evils  on  this  accasion  to  afford  you  the 
grounds  for  ssuring  the  government  of  France  that  the  President  regards 
the  revolutio  as  one  which  in  every  event  must  and  will  be  prevented,  since 
it  is  manifestthat  the  evils  which  would  result  from  its  success  would  be 
as  incurable  $  they  would  be  intolerable. 

It  is,  indee(  an  occasion  of  much  regret  that  it  has  been  found  needful  to 
employ  force  ir  this  purpose.  It  is  contrary  to  the  genius  and  the  habits 
of  the  people,  *  it  is  repugnant  to  the  sentiments  of  the  government  of  the 
country  and  otnankind.  But  the  President  believes  that  the  country  will 
accept  that  altmative  with  the  less  regret  because  sufficient  time  has  been 
allowed  to  try  tq ry  expedient  of  conciliatory  prevention,  and  civil  war  is 
at  last  proved  t  be  unavoidable.  The  responsibility  of  it  must  rest  with 
those  who  have  ot  only  inaugurated  it,  but  have  done  so  without  cause  and 
without  provocaon.  The  world  will  see  that  it  is  an  evil  that  comes  upon 
us  not  from  anyecessity  growing  out  of  administration  or  out  of  our  Con¬ 
stitution  itself,  bt  from  a  necessity  growing  out  of  our  common  nature. 


184 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


It  must  not,  however,  be  inferred  that  the  reluctance  of  the  government 
to  employ  force  so  long  has  demoralized  the  administration  or  can  demoralize 
the  American  people.  They  are  capable  of  a  high,  resolute,  and  vigorous 
defence  of  the  Union,  and  they  will  maintain  that  defence  with  only  the  more 
firmness  and  fidelity,  because  the}7  are  animated  by  no  hostile  spirit,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  by  a  friendly  and  even  fraternal  one,  being  satisfied  that  its 
benefits  will  result  equally  to  those  who  are  engaged  in  overthrowing  and 
those  who  are  engaged  in  defending  the  Union. 

I  have  thus,  under  the  President’s  direction,  placed  before  you  a  simple, 
unexaggerated,  and  dispassionate  statement  of  the  origin,  nature,  and  pur¬ 
poses  of  the  contest  in  which  the  United  States  are  now  involved.  I  have 
done  so  only  for  the  purpose  of  deducing  from  it  the  arguments  you  will  fiad 
it  necessary  to  employ  in  opposing  the  application  of  the  so-called  Confaie- 
rate  States  to  the  government  of  his  Majesty  the  Emperor  for  a  recognition 
of  its  independence  and  sovereignty. 

The  President  neither  expects  nor  desires  any  intervention,  or  even  any 
favor,  from  the  government  of  France,  or  any  other,  in  this  emergency. 
Whatever  else  he  may  consent  to  do,  he  wtill  never  invoke  nor  even  gdmit 
foreign  interference  or  influence  in  this  or  any  other  controversy  in  yhich 
the  government  of  the  United  States  may  be  engaged  with  any  porton  of 
the  American  people.  It  has  been  simply  his  aim  to  show  that  the  pesent 
controversy  furnishes  no  one  ground  on  which  a  great  and  friendly  lower, 
like  France,  can  justly  lend  aid  or  sympatlty  to  the  party  engaged  ir insur¬ 
rection,  and  therefore  he  instructs  you  to  insist  on  the  practice  of  neutrality 
by  the  scovernment  of  the  Emperor,  as  all  our  representatives  are  instructed 
to  insist  on  the  neutrality  of  the  several  powers  to  which  they  are  aci'edited. 

Not  entertaining  the  least  apprehension  of  the  departure  from  tha  course 
by  his  Majesty’s  government,  it  is  not  without  some  reluctance  that  the 
President  consents  to  the  suggestion  of  some  considerations  affecting  France 
herself,  which  you  may  urge  in  support  of  it.  France  is  an  agriculural  and 
manufacturing  country.  Her  industry  depends  very  largely  on  aionsump- 
tion  of  her  productions  and  fabrics  within  the  United  States,  aid  on  the 
receipt,  in  exchange,  of  cotton,  or  other  staples,  or  their  equivalent^  money, 
from  the  United  States.  The  ability  of  the  United  States  to  thu  consume 
and  furnish  depends  on  their  ability  to  maintain  and  preserve  pece.  War 
here  will  in  any  case  be  less  flagrant,  and  peace,  when  brokn,  will  be 
restored  all  the  more  quickly  and  all  the  more  perfectly  if  forety  nations 
shall  have  the  sagacity,  not  to  say  the  magnanimity,  to  practice  ^neutrality 
we  demand. 

Foreign  intervention  would  oblige  us  to  treat  those  who  shoul  yield  it  as 
allies  of  the  insurrectionary  party,  and  to  carry  on  the  war  aga'ist  them  as 
enemies.  The  case  would  not  be  relieved,  but,  on  the  contrary  would  only 
be  aggravated,  if  several  European  states  should  combine  in  iat  interven¬ 
tion.  The  President  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  dee*  the  Union, 
which  would  then  be  at  stake,* worth  all  the  cost  and  all  the  acrifices  of  a 
contest  with  the  world  in  arms,  if  such  a  contest  should  provenevitable. 

However  other  European  powers  may  mistake,  his  MajestyS  the  last  one 
of  those  sovereigns  to  misapprehend  the  nature  of  this  cofi'oversy.  He 
knows  that  the  re  volution  of  1775  in  this  country  wTas  a  sumssful  contest 
of  the  great  American  idea  of  free  popular  government  afinst  resisting 
prejudices  and  errors.  He  knows  that  the  conflict  awakenef he  sympathies 
of  mankind,  and  that  ultimately  the  triumph  of  that  idea  habeen  hailed  by 
all  European  nations.  He  knows  at  what  cost  European  naons  resisted  for 
a  time  the  progress  of  that  idea,  and  perhaps  is  not  un  will  if  to  confess  how 
much  France,  especially,  has  profited  by  it.  He  will  not  nil  to  recognize 
the  presence  of  that  one  great  idea  in  the  present  confiictnor  will  he  mis- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


185 


take  the  side  on  which  it  will  be  found.  It  is,  in  short,  the  very  principle  of 
universal  suffrage,  with  its  claim  to  obedience  to  its  decrees,  on  which  the 
government  of  France  is  built,  that  is  put  in  issue  by  the  insurrection  here, 
and  is  in  tin’s  emergency  to  be  vindicated,  and,  more  effectually  than  ever, 
established  by  the  government  of  the  United  States. 

I  forbear  from  treating  of  questions  arising  out  of  the  revenue  laws  of  the 
United  States,  which  lately  have  been  supposed  to  have  some  bearing  on  the 
subject.  They  have  already  passed  away  before  the  proclamation  of  the 
blockade  of  ports  in  the  hands  of  the  revolutionary  party.  Nor  could  con¬ 
siderations  so  merely  mercenary  and  ephemeral  in  any  case  enter  into  the 
counsels  of  the  Emperor  of  France. 

You  will,  naturally  enough,  be  asked  what  is  the  President’s  expectation 
concerning  the  progress  of  the  contest  and  the  prospect  of  its  termination. 
It  is,  of  course,  impossible  to  speculate,  with  any  confidence,  upon  the  course 
of  a  revolution,  and  to  fix  times  and  seasons  for  the  occurrence  of  political 
events  affected  by  the  excitement  of  popular  passions  ;  but  there  are  two 
things  which  may  be  assumed  as  certain  :  First.  That  the  union  of  these 
States  is  an  object  of  supreme  and  undying  devotion  on  the  part  of  the  Amer¬ 
ican  people,  and,  therefore,  it  will  be  vindicated  and  maintained.  Secondly. 
The  American  people,  notwithstanding  any  temporary  disturbance  of  their 
equanimity,  are  yet  a  sagacious  and  practical  people,  and  less  experience  of 
evils  than  an3r  other  nation  would  require  will  bring  them  back  to  their 
customary  and  habitual  exercise  of  reason  and  reflection,  and,  through  that 
process, to  the  settlement  of  the  controversy  without  further  devastation  and 
demoralization  by  needless  continuance  in  a  state  of  civil  war. 

The  President  recognizes,  to  a  certain  extent,  the  European  idea  of  the 
balance  of  power.  If  the  principle  has  any  foundation  at  all,  the  independ¬ 
ence  and  the  stability  af  these  United  States  just  in  their  present  form, 
properties,  and  character,  are  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  balance  be¬ 
tween  the  nations  of  the  earth  as  it  now  exists.  It  is  not  easy  to  see  how 
France,  Great  Britain,  Russia,  or  even  reviving  Spain,  could  hope  to  suppress 
wars  of  ambition  which  must  inevitably  break  out  if  this  continent  of  North 
America,  now,  after  the  exclusion  of  foreign  interests  for  three-quarters  of  a 
century,  is  again  to  become  a  theatre  for  the  ambition  and  cupidity  of  Euro¬ 
pean  nations. 

It  stands  forth  now  to  the  glory  of  France  that  she  contributed  to  the 
emancipation  of  this  continent  from  the  control  of  European  states,  an  eman¬ 
cipation  which  has  rendered  only  less  benefit  to  those  nations  than  to 
America  itself.  The  present  enlightened  monarch  of  France  is  too  ambitious, 
in  the  generous  sense  of  the  word,  to  signalize  his  reign  by  an  attempt  to 
reverse  that  great  and  magnanimous  transaction.  He  is,  moreover,  too  wise 
not  to  understand  that  the  safety  and  advancement  of  the  United  States  are 
guaranteed  by  the  necessities,  and,  therefore,  by  the  sympathies  oi  mankind. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  n.  SEWARD. 

Hon.  William  L.  Dayton,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Faulkner  to  Mr.  Black. 

No.  111.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Baris,  March  19,  18G1. 

Sir  :  I  had  the  honor  to-day  to  receive  your  despatch,  No.  45,  touching 
certain  recent  political  movements  in  the  United  States.  I  had,  of  course, 
through  the  public  journals,  been  made  acquainted  with  the  painful  facts  to 


186 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


which  you  refer  ;  hut  your  communication  brings  them  now,  for  the  first 
time,  officially  to  my  notice. 

I  need  hardly  say  to  you  that  the  events  which  have  signalized  the  history 
of  the  United  States  for  the  last  few  months  have  occupied  the  attention  of  a 
very  large  share  of  the  statesmen  and  people  of  Europe.  In  all  my  inter¬ 
course,  public  and  private,  from  the  Emperor  to  the  peasant,  embracing  all 
grades  of  ministerial  and  diplomatic  agents,  it  has  been  the  engrossing,  I 
might  almost  say  the  only  topic  of  conversation.  A  revolution  was  as  little 
anticipated  in  the  United  States  as  an  earthquake  in  Paris. 

That  large  communities  should  be  casting  off  the  protection  of  a  govern¬ 
ment  to  which  thousands  on  this  continent  were  looking  for  the  realization 
of  all  their  dreams  of  happiness  on  earth  ;  that  a  system  should  he  pro¬ 
nounced  a  failure  which  has  produced,  within  a  few  years,  the  most  extra¬ 
ordinary  developments  of  national  prosperity  and  power  of  which  history 
has  left  any  record  ;  that  a  flag  should  be  trampled  in  the  dust  which  has 
never  been  stained  by  oppression,  and  which  is  hailed  as  the  emblem  of  civil 
and  religious  freedom  in  every  corner  of  the  globe,  were  problems  well  cal¬ 
culated  to  rouse  the  inquisitive  and  to  puzzle  the  uninformed.  The  conse¬ 
quence  was,  that  there  has  been,  within  the  last  four  months,  throughout 
Europe  a  more  thorough  and  general  discussion,  by  the  press  and  by  indi¬ 
viduals,  of  American  institutions  than  had  occurred  for  the  previous  twenty 
years.  In  general  the  press  of  Europe  is  in  able  and  skilful  hands  ;  and  if, 
in  their  late  discussions,  it  has  occasionally  fallen  into  some  egregious  blun¬ 
ders,  it  shows  how  little  familiar  the  best-informed  were  with  the  details  of 
our  svstem  when  those  events  arose  which  have  attracted  to  our  condition 
the  gaze  of  Europe. 

You  inform  me  that  it  is  not  improbable  that  persons  claiming  to  repre¬ 
sent  the  States  which  have  attempted  to  throw  off  their  federal  obligations 
will  seek  a  recognition  of  their  independence  by  the  Emperor  of  the  French  ; 
that  you  would  regard  such  an  act,  on  the  part  of  the  French  government, 
as  calculated  to  encourag'e  the  revolutionary  movements  of  the  seceding 
States,  and  to  increase  the  dangers  of  disaffection  in  those  which  shall  remain 
loyal  ;  that  it  would  be  inconsistent  with  the  friendship  which  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  has  always  heretofore  experienced  from  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  France  ;  that  it  would  tend  to  disturb  the  friendly  relations, 
diplomatic  and  commercial,  now  existing  between  those  two  powers,  and 
prove  adverse  to  the  interests  of  France  and  the  United  States. 

You  have  not  in  your  despatch  informed  me  what  line  of  policy  it  is  the 
purpose  of  the  federal  government  to  adopt  towards  the  seceding  States,  a 
fact  most  material  in  determining  my  own  action,  as  well  as  the  views  to  be 
addressed  to  a  foreign  power  on  the  points  presented  by  your  instructions. 
If  I  correctly  construe  the  intentions  of  the  government,  it  looks  to  a  pacific 
solution  of  the  difficulties  which  now  disturb  its  relations  with  the  seceding 
States.  In  other  words,  it  does  not  propose  to  resort  to  the  strong  arm  of 
military  power  to  coerce  those  States  into  submission  to  the  federal  authority. 
If  this  be  a  correct  view  of  its  proposed  action,  and  all  who  understand  the 
genius  of  our  institutions  and  the  character  of  our  people  must  hope  that  it 
shall  be  such,  the  only  difficulty  will  be  in  making  European  governments 
appreciate  the  spirit  of  such  wise  and  conciliatory  policy,  and  comprehend 
the  just  application  of  the  principles  of  international  jurisprudence  to  a 
state  of  facts  so  novel  and  peculiar. 

The  fact  which  seems  chiefly  to  have  governed  the  conduct  of  nations  in 
establishing  diplomatic  and  commercial  relations  with  States  or  provinces 
which  have  thrown  off  their  allegiance  to  the  general  power — I  mean,  of 
course,  apart  from  the  fact  of  their  ability  to  maintain  international  relations 
with  the  world — is  the  practical  cessation  of  all  attempts  by  arms  to  enforce 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


187 


obedience  to  the  authority  asserted.  This  rule  is  founded  upon  the  idea  that 
force,  successfully  exerted  or  resisted,  is  the  only  criterion  by  which  the  re¬ 
spective  claims  to  sovereignty  of  the  contending  parties  can  be  adjudged. 
And,  unfortunately,  the  past  history  of  the  world  exhibits  no  other  influence 
which  has  been  deemed  fit  and  proper  to  be  invoked  to  maintain  authority  or 
to  suppress  revolution.  But  it  is  obvious  that  this  rule  cannot  be  rigidly 
applied  by  foreign  governments  to  our  political  system,  nor  to  the  course  of 
policy  which  the  federal  government  has  thought  expedient  to  pursue  towards 
the  seceding  States,  without  exhibiting,  on  the  part  of  such  foreign  govern¬ 
ment,  a  most  unfriendly  disregard  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  the  remain¬ 
ing  twenty-eight  States,  and  an  eager  desire  to  dismember  the  confederacy. 
Where  the  parties  place  the  issue  fairly  upon  the  arbitrament  of  the  sword, 
there  the  result  of  arms  must  naturally  determine  the  action  of  foreign 
powers.  But  where  force  is  ab  initio  repudiated  as  the  means  of  terminating 
the  contest;  where  the  appeal  is  to  the  reason,  judgment,  and  interests  of 
the  seceding  States ;  where  time  is  an  essential  element  to  moderate  excited 
passion,  to  examine  into  alleged  grievances,  and  to  apply  the  remedies  pro¬ 
vided  by  our  constitutional  system;  and  especially  when  it  is  known  that 
propositions  for  the  adjustment  of  the  points  at  issue  are  now  being  consid¬ 
ered  by  some  of  the  most  influential  States  of  the  confederacy,  a  hasty 
recognition  by  any  foreign  power  of  the  independence  of  the  seceding 
States  would  exhibit,  upon  the  part  of  such  foreign  government,  proof  as 
unequivocal  of  an  unfriendly  spirit  towards  the  United  States  as  if  such 
recognition  were  made  amidst  the  clash  of  arms,  and  with  a  view  of  exert¬ 
ing  a  moral  influence  over  the  result  of  the  struggle.  It  would  seem  to  me, 
therefore,  that  no  principle  of  international  law,  nor  any  considerations  of 
courtesy  or  commercial  benefit  could  justify  a  foreign  power  in  adding  to 
the  embarrassments  of  our  present  domestic  position  by  recognizing  at  this 
time  the  independence  of  the  confederated  States.  No  appeal  will  be  made 
to  its  sympathy  by  the  allegation  of  grievous  wrong  and  oppression  in  the 
presence  of  the  fact  that  nine  other  States,  with  the  same  rights  and  inter¬ 
ests  involved,  equally  free,  brave,  and  high  spirited,  have  not  deemed  the 
evil  sufficient  to  justify  a  remedy  so  extreme.  Time  has  not  yet  made  mani¬ 
fest  to  the  world  how  far  those  movements  have  sprung  from  passion,  or  are 
the  results  of  deliberate  judgment;  whether  they  have  originated  in  fears 
which  have  sipce  proved  unfounded,  or  are  the  settled  convictions  of  the 
popular  mind.  Nor  has  any  adequate  opportunity  been  afforded  for  the  cor¬ 
rection  of  the  grievance  complained  of  by  the  regular  operation  of  our  con¬ 
stitutional  system.  The  foreign  power  which  would,  under  such  circum¬ 
stances,  recognize  the  independence  of  those  States,  and  thus  frustrate  and 
embarrass  the  regular  and  pacific  adjustment  of  our  own  internal  difficulties, 
would  subject  itself  to  grave  accusations  of  hostility  to  the  Union,  and  give 
to  the  federal  authority,  as  the  agent  and  representative  of  the  remaining 
States,  just  cause  of  dissatisfaction. 

I  have  no  hesitation  in  expressing  it  as  my  opinion,  founded  upon  frequent 
general  interviews  with  the  Emperor,  although  in  no  instance  touching  this 
particular  point,  that  France  will  act  upon  this  delicate  question  when  it 
shall  be  presented  to  her  consideration  in  the  spirit  of  a  most  friendly  power; 
that  she  will  be  the  last  of  the  great  states  of  Europe  to  give  a  hasty  en¬ 
couragement  to  the  dismemberment  of  the  Union,  or  to  afford  to  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States,  in  the  contingency  to  which  you  refer,  any  just 
cause  of  complaint.  The  unhappy  divisions  which  have  alllicted  our  country 
have  attracted  the  Emperor’s  earnest  attention  since  the  first  of  January 
last,  and  he  has  never,  but  upon  one  occasion  of  our  meeting  since,  failed 
to  make  them  the  subject  of  friendly  inquiry,  and  often  of  comment,  lie 
looks  upon  the  dismemberment  of  the  American  confederacy  with  no  pleas- 


188 


CORRESPONDENCE. 

are,  bat  as  a  calamity  to  be  deplored  by  every  enlightened  friend  of  human 
progress.  And  lie  would  act,  not  only  m  conflict  with  sentiments  often  ex¬ 
pressed,  but  in  opposition  to  the  well  understood  feelings  of  the  French 
people,  if  he  should  precipitately  adopt  any  step  whatever  tending  to  give 
force  and  efficacy  to  those  movements  of  separation,  so  long  as  a  reasonable 
hope  remains  that  the  federal  authority  can  or  should  be  maintained  over 
the  seceding  States. 

The  Emperor  Napoleon  lias  no  selfish  purpose  to  accomplish  by  the  dis¬ 
memberment  of  the  American  Union.  As  he  has  upon  more  than  one  occa¬ 
sion  said  to  me:  “There  are  no  points  of  collision  between  France  and  the 
United  States;  their  interests  are  harmonious,  and  they  point  to  one  policy, 
the  closest  friendship  and  the  freest  commercial  intercourse.”  He  knows 
full  well  that  the  greatness  of  our  republic  cannot  endanger  the  stability  of 
his  throne,  or  cast  a  shadow  over  the  glory  of  France.  He  wrould  rather 
see  us  united  and  powerful  than  dissevered  and  weak.  He  is  too  enlight¬ 
ened  to  misapprehend  the  spirit  of  conciliation  which  now  actuates  the 
conduct  of  the  federal  authorities.  He  knows  that  appeals  to  the  public 
judgment  perform  that  function  in  our  republic  which  is  elsewhere  only  ac¬ 
complished  by  brute  force.  And  if  armies  have  not  been  marshalled,  as  they 
would  have  been  ere  this  in  Europe,  to  give  effect  to  the  federal  authority, 
he  is  aware  that  it  is  not  because  the  general  government  disclaims  authority 
over  the  seceding  States,  or  is  destitute  of  the  means  and  resources  of  war, 
but  from  an  enlightened  conviction  on  its  part  that  time  and  reflection  will 
be  more  efficacious  than  arms  in  re-establishing  the  federal  authority,  and 
restoring  that  sentiment  of  loyalty  to  the  Union  which  was  once  the  pride 
of  every  American  heart. 

I  have  not,  so  far,  heard  that  any  commissioners  have  been  sent  by  the 
seceding  States  to  France.  Should  they,  as  you  anticipate,  arrive  shortly,  I 
think  I  am  not  mistaken  in  saying  that  they  will  find  that  the  imperial  gov¬ 
ernment  is  not  yet  prepared  to  look  favorably  upon  the  object  of  this 
mission. 

I  have  made  this  despatch  longer,  perhaps,  than  wras  necessary,  for  I 
have  not  had  time  to  elaborate  and  digest  my  ideas  very  carefully,  and  sub¬ 
mit  them  as  suggestions  to  elicit  more  fully  the  views  and  instructions  of 
the  government. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHAS.  J.  FAULKNER. 

Hon.  Jeremiah  S.  Black, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Faulkner  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  119.]  Legatiox  of  the  United  States, 

Paris,  April  15,  1861. 

Sir:  I  called  to-day  upon  Mr.  Thouvenel  at  the  ministry  of  foreign  affairs, 
and  was  promptly  admitted  to  an  interview.  Agreeably  to  your  request,  I 
handed  to  him  a  copy  of  the  inaugural  address  of  Fresident  Lincoln,  and 
added  that  I  was  instructed  by  you  to  say  to  him  that  it  embraced  the 
views  of  the  President  of  the  United  States  upon  the  difficulties  which  now 
disturbed  the  harmony  of  the  American  Union,  and  also  an  exposition  of  the 
general  policy  which  it  wTas  the  purpose  of  the  government  to  pursue  with  a 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


189 


view  to  the  preservation  of  domestic  peace  and  the  maintenance  of  the 
federal  Union.  Here  Mr.  Thouvenel  asked  if  there  was  not  some  diversity 
of  opinion  in  the  cabinet  of  the  President  as  to  the  proper  mode  of  meeting 
the  difficulties  which  now  disturbed  the  relations  of  the  States  and  general 
government.  I  replied,  upon  that  point  1  had  no  information;  under  our 
system  the  cabinet  was  but  an  advising  body;  its  opinions  were  entitled  to 
weight,  but  did  not  necessarily  compel  the  action  of  the  President;  the  ex¬ 
ecutive  power  was,  by  the  Constitution,  vested  exclusively  in  the  President. 

I  said  that  I  was  further  instructed  to  assure  him  that  the  President  of 
the  United  States  entertains  a  full  confidence  in  the  speedy  restoration  of 
the  harmony  and  unity  of  the  government  by  a  firm,  yet  just  and  liberal 
policy,  co-operating  with  the  deliberate  and  loyal  action  of  the  American 
people.  Mr.  Thouvenel  expressed  his  pleasure  at  this  assurance. 

I  further  said  that  the  President  regretted  that  the  events  going  on  in  the 
United  States  might  be  productive  of  some  possible  inconvenience  to  the 
people  and  subjects  of  France,  but  he  was  determined  that  those  incon¬ 
veniences  shall  be  made  as  light  and  transient  as  possible,  and,  so  far  as  it 
may  rest  with  him,  that  all  strangers  who  may  suffer  any  injury  from  them 
shall  be  indemnified. 

I  said  to  him  that  the  President  thought  it  not  improbable  that  an  appeal 
would  be  made  before  long  by  the  “confederated  States”  to  foreign  powers, 
and,  among  others,  to  the  government  of  France,  for  the  recognition  of  their 
independence;  that  no  such  appeal  having  yet  been  made,  it  was  prema¬ 
ture  and  out  of  place  to  discuss  any  of  the  points  involved  in  that  delicate 
and  important  inquiry;  but  the  government  of  the  United  States  desired 
the  fact  to  be  known  that  whenever  any  such  application  shall  be  made  it  will 
meet  with  opposition  from  the  minister  who  shall  then  represent  that  gov¬ 
ernment  at  this  court. 

I  said  to  him  that  my  mission  at  this  court  would  very  soon  terminate, 
and  that  I  should  have  no  official  connexion  with  the  question  which,  it  was 
anticipated,  might  arise  upon  the  demand  of  the  confederated  States  for  the 
recognition  of  their  independence  ;  that  my  place  would  soon  be  supplied 
by  a  distinguished  citizen  of  the  State  of  New  Jersey,  a  gentleman  who 
possessed  the  confidence  of  the  President,  who  fully  sympathized  in  his 
public  views,  and  who  would  doubtless  come  fully  instructed  as  to  the  then 
wishes  and  views  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  that  the  only 
request  which  I  would  now  make,  and  which  would  close  all  I  had  to  say 
in  the  interview,  was  that  no  proposition  recognizing  the  permanent  dis¬ 
memberment  of  the  American  Union  shall  be  considered  b}T  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment  until  after  the  arrival  and  reception  of  the  new  minister  accredited 
by  the  United  States  to  this  court. 

Air.  Thouvenel,  in  reply,  said  that  no  application  had  yet  been  made  to 
him  by  the  confederated  States,  in  any  form,  for  the  recognition  of  their 
independence;  that  the  French  government  was  not  in  the  habit  of  acting 
hastily  upon  such  questions,  as  might  be  seen  by  its  tardiness  in  recognizing 
the  new  kingdom  of  Italy;  that  he  believed  the  maintenance  of  the  federal 
Union,  in  its  integrity,  was  to  be  desired  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  north 
and  south,  as  well  as  for  the  interests  of  France,  and  the  government  of  the 
United  States  might  rest  well  assured  that  no  hasty  or  precipitate  action 
would  be  taken  on  that  subject  by  the  Emperor.  But  whilst  he  gave  utter¬ 
ance  of  these  views,  he  was  equally  bound  to  say  that  the  practice  and 
usage  of  the  present  century  had  fully  established  the  right  of  de  facto  gov¬ 
ernments  to  recognition  when  a  proper  case  was  made  out  for  the  decision 
of  foreign  powers.  Here  the  official  interview  ended. 

The  conversation  was  then  further  protracted  by  an  inquiry  from  Mr. 
Thouvenel  when  the  new  tariff  would  go  into  operation,  and  whether  it  was 


190 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


to  be  regarded  as  the  settled  policy  of  the  government.  I  told  him  that  the 
first  day  of  the  present  month  had  been  prescribed  as  the  period  when  the 
new  duties  would  take  effect;  that  I  had  not  yet  examined  its  provisions 
with  such  care  as  wTould  justify  me  in  pronouncing  an  opinion  upon  its 
merits;  that  it  was  condemned  by  the  commercial  classes  of  the  country, 
and  that  I  had  no  doubt,  from  the  discontent  manifested  in  several  quarters, 
that  the  subject  would  engage  the  attention  of  Congress  at  its  next  meeting, 
and  probably  some  important  modifications  would  be  made  in  it.  The 
finances  of  the  government  were  at  this  time  temporarily  embarrassed,  and 
I  had  no  doubt  the  provisions  of  the  new  tariff  were  adopted  with  a  view, 
although  probably  a  mistaken  one,  of  sustaining  the  credit  of  the  treasury 
as  much  as  of  reviving  the  protective  policy.  He  then  asked  me  my  opinion 
as  to  the  course  of  policy  that  would  be  adopted  towards  the  seceding 
States,  and  whether  I  thought  force  would  be  employed  to  coerce  them  into 
submission  to  the  federal  authority.  I  told  him  that  I  could  only  give  him 
my  individual  opinion,  and  that  I  thought  force  would  not  be  employed; 
that  ours  was  a  government  of  public  opinion,  and  although  the  Union 
unquestionably  possessed  all  the  ordinary  powers  necessary  for  its  preserva¬ 
tion,  as  had  been  shown  in  several  partial  insurrections  which  had  occurred 
in  our  history,  yet  that  the  extreme  powers  of  government  could  only  be 
used  in  accordance  with  public  opinion,  and  that  I  was  satisfied  that  the 
sentiment  of  the  people  was  opposed  to  the  employment  of  force  against 
the  seceding  States.  So  sincere  was  the  deference  felt  in  that  country  for 
the  great  principles  of  self-government,  and  so  great  the  respect  for  the 
action  of  the  people,  when  adopted  under  the  imposing  forms  of  State 
organization  and  State  sovereignty,  that  I  did  not  think  the  employment  of 
force  would  be  tolerated  for  a  moment,  and  I  thought  the  only  solution  of 
our  difficulties  would  be  found  in  such  modifications  of  our  constitutional 
compact  as  would  invite  the  seceding  States  back  into  the  Union  on  a 
peaceable  acquiescence  in  the  assertion  of  their  claims  to  a  separate  sov- 
ereignty.  ********* 
I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

CHAS.  J.  FAULKNER 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


J\Ir.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  7.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  4,  1861. 

Sir:  The  despatches  of  your  predecessor,  Nos.  117,  119,  and  120,  have 
been  received;  the  latter  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  our  letter  of  recall 
and  announcing  his  intended  return  requires  no  special  notice. 

No.  117  bears  the  date  of  the  5th  of  April  last.  It  contains  only  an  expo¬ 
sition  of  Mr.  Faulkner’s  views  of  the  policy  which  this  government  ought 
to  pursue  in  regard  to  the  disturbed  condition  of  affairs  at  home,  but  at  the 
same  time  gives  us  no  information  concerning  the  state  of  our  affairs  in 
France. 

The  instructions  heretofore  transmitted  to  you  will  show  you  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  views  on  the  subject  Mr.  Faulkner  has  discussed,  and  these  will  be 
your  guide  notwithstanding  any  different  opinions  your  predecessor  may 
have  expressed  or  left  on  record  at  Paris. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


191 


Xo.  119  bears  date  of  the  15th  of  April  last,  and  contains  a  report  of  an 
official  conversation,  and  also  of  an  unofficial  one  held  between  Mr.  Faulkner 
and  Mr.  Thouvenel. 

In  the  former  conversation  Mr.  Thouvenel  asked  Mr.  Faulkner  whether 
there  is  not  some  diversity  of  opinion  in  the  cabinet  of  the  President  as  to 
the  proper  mode  of  meeting  the  difficulties  which  now  disturb  the  relations 
of  the  States  and  the  general  government.  Mr.  Faulkner,  in  reply,  said  that 
he  had  no  information  on  the  subject. 

The  matter  is  of  no  great  moment,  yet  it  is  desirable  that  there  be  no 
misapprehension  of  the  true  state  of  the  government  in  the  present  emer¬ 
gency. 

You  may,  therefore,  recall  that  conversation  to  Mr.  ThouvenePs  memory, 
and  then  assure  him  explicitly  that  there  is  no  difference  of  opinion  what¬ 
ever  between  the  President  and  his  constitutional  advisers,  or  among  those 
advisers  themselves,  concerning  the  policy  that  has  been  pursued,  and  which 
is  now  prosecuted  by  the  administration  in  regard  to  the  unhappy  disturb¬ 
ances  existing  in  the  country.  The  path  of  executive  duty  has  thus  far  been 
too  plainly  marked  out  by  stern  necessities  to  be  mistaken,  while  the  solem¬ 
nity  of  the  great  emergency  and  the  responsibilities  it  devolves  have  extin¬ 
guished  in  the  public  councils  every  emotion  but  those  of  loyalty  and 
patriotism.  It  is  not  in  the  hands  of  this  administration  that  this  govern¬ 
ment  is  to  come  to  an  end  at  all — much  less  for  want  of  harmony  in  devotion 
to  the  country. 

Mr.  ThouvenePs  declaration  that  the  United  States  may  rest  well  assured 
that  no  hasty  or  precipitate  action  will  be  taken  on  the  subject  of  the  appre¬ 
hended  application  of  the  insurrectionists  for  a  recognition  of  the  independ¬ 
ence  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  is  entirely  satisfactory,  although  it 
was  attended  by  a  reservation  of  views  concerning  general  principles  appli¬ 
cable  to  cases  that  need  not  now  be  discussed. 

In  the  unofficial  conversation  Mr.  Faulkner  says  that  he  himself  expressed 
the  opinion  that  force  would  not  be  resorted  to  to  coerce  the  so-called 
seceding  States  into  submission  to  the  federal  authority,  and  that  the  only 
solution  of  the  difficulty  would  be  found  in  such  modifications  of  the  consti¬ 
tutional  compact  as  would  invite  the  seceding  States  back  into  the  Union, 
or  a  peaceable  acquiescence  in  the  assertion  of  their  claim  to  a  separate 
sovereignty. 

The  time  when  these  questions  had  any  pertinency  or  plausibility  have 
passed  away.  The  United  States  waited  patiently  while  their  authority  was 
defied  in  turbulent  assemblies,  and  in  seditious  preparations,  willing  to  hope 
that  mediation,  offered  on  all  sides,  would  conciliate  and  induce  the  disaf¬ 
fected  parties  to  return  to  a  better  mind. 

But  the  case  is  now  altogether  changed.  The  insurgents  have  instituted 
revolution  with  open,  flagrant,  deadly  war  to  compel  the  United  States  to  ac¬ 
quiesce  in  the  dismemberment  of  the  Union.  The  United  States  have  accepted 
this  civil  war  as  an  inevitable  necessity.  The  constitutional  remedies  for  all 
the  complaints  of  the  insurgents  are  still  open  to  them,  and  will  remain  so. 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  the  land  and  naval  forces  of  the  Union  have  been 
put  into  activity  to  restore  the  federal  authority  and  to  save  the  Union  from 
danger. 

You  cannot  be  too  decided  or  too  explicit  in  making  known  to  the  French 
government  that  there  is  not  now,  nor  has  there  been,  nor  will  there  be  any 
the  least  idea  existing  in  this  government  of  suffering  a  dissolution  of  this 
Union  to  take  place  in  any  way  whatever. 

There  will  be  here  only  one  nation  and  one  government,  and  there  will  be 
the  same  republic,  and  the  same  constitutional  Union  that  have  already  sur¬ 
vived  a  dozen  national  changes,  and  changes  of  government  in  almost  every 


192 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


other  country.  These  will  stand  hereafter,  as  they  are  now,  objects  of  human 
wonder  and  human  affection. 

You  have  seen,  on  the  eve  of  your  departure,  the  elasticity  of  the  national 
spirit,  the  vigor  of  the  national  government,  and  the  lavish  devotion  of  the 
national  treasures  to  this  great  cause.  Tell  Mr.  Thouvenel,  then,  with  the 
highest  consideration  and  good  feeling,  that  the  thought  of  a  dissolution  of 
this  Union,  peaceably  or  by  force,  has  never  entered  into  the  mind  of  any 
candid  statesman  here,  and  it  is  high  time  that  it  be  dismissed  by  statesmen 
in  Europe. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Wm.  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c .,  &c. 


Mr.  Day  ton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  5.]  Paris,  May  22,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  pleasure  to  announce  to  you  my  arrival  in  this  city  on 
Saturday,  May  11.  On  Monday,  application  was  made  through  our  legation 
for  an  audience  with  Mr.  Thouvenel,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  which  was 
granted  for  the  16th  instant,  on  which  day  I  was  duly  presented  to  him  by 
Mr.  Walsh,  of  the  American  legation. 

Mr.  Thouvenel,  in  the  course  of  the  conversation,  took  occasion  to  say 
that  he  deeply  regretted  the  condition  of  things  in  the  United  States,  and 
that  in  this  expression  of  feeling  he  represented  the  views  and  feelings  of 
the  Emperor;  that  so  deeply  concerned  was  the  Emperor  that  he  had  felt 
disposed  to  offer  his  good  offices,  but  had  been  deterred  from  the  fear  that 
his  offer  might  not  be  well  received;  but  should  occasion  for  this  arise,  he 
would  always  be  ready  and  happy  to  be  of  use.  He  made  special  inquiry 
as  to  the  policy  of  our  government  in  regard  to  neutral  rights,  particularly 
in  reference  to  neutral  property  found  in  southern  ships.  He  went  into 
considerable  detail  to  show  that  historical  precedents  were  in  favor  of 
treating  southern  vessels  as  those  of  a  regular  belligerent,  and  applying  the 
same  doctrine  to  them  as  had  always  been  upheld  by  the  United  States. 
He  dwelt  particularly  upon  the  fact  that  Great  Britain,  during  our  revolu¬ 
tionary  war,  had  not  considered  our  privateers  as  pirates.  I  understood 
him  to  say  that,  as  respects  an  effective  blockade,  it  would  be  fully  recog¬ 
nized  and  respected;  but  he  seemed  much  impressed  with  the  importance 
of  understanding  clearly  the  intentions  of  our  government  in  reference  to 
these  matters  as  respects  the  foreign  world. 

As  respects  a  tender  of  the  kind  offices  of  the  Emperor  I  could  only  thank 
him  for  the  interest  in  our  country  which  the  suggestion  manifested,  but 
gave  him  no  reason  to  suppose  such  offer  at  this  time  would  be  accepted. 
As  to  the  doctrines  which  our  government  would  apply  in  reference  to  the 
blockade  of  southern  ports  and  neutral  rights,  I  told  him  I  had  no  specific 
instructions  at  present,  and  could  only  refer  him  to  the  proclamation  of  the 
President  and  the  general  principles  of  international  law  which  might  bear 
on  the  case.  I  further  informed  him  that  immediately  after  my  reception  by 
the  Emperor  I  would  apprise  my  government  of  the  anxiety  of  the  French 
government  to  learn  the  views  of  our  government  more  definitively  upon 
these  questions.  You  will  not  fail  to  have  observed  that  the  action  of 
France  and  England  upon  this  question  of  belligerent  rights  has  been  upon 
a  mutual  understanding  and  agreement. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


193 


Throughout  the  conversation  he  seemed  anxious  to  impress  upon  me  the 
great  interest  which  France  took  in  our  condition,  and  their  desire  for  the 
perpetuation  of  the  Union  of  the  States.  He  referred  to  the  fact  that  France 
had  aided  in  its  formation,  and  did  not  desire  to  witness  its  dissolution. 
The  recognition  of  the  southern  confederates  as  possessing  belligerent 
rights  he  did  not  consider  at  all  as  recognizing  them  as  independent  States. 

After  the  conversation  had  closed,  to  save  time  I  at  once  presented  a 
copy  of  my  letters  of  credence,  and  requested  an  audience  of  the  Emperor,  Ac. 

On  the  next  day  I  was  informed  by  a  note  from  the  minister  that  I  would 
he  received  at  the  palace  on  the  19th  instant,  at  which  time  I  was  presented 
in  due  form  to  the  Emperor,  in  the  presence  of  certain  officers  of  the  court. 

A  copy  of  my  remarks  to  the  Emperor  will  be  found  enclosed,  (letter  A.) 
In  reply,  the  Emperor,  after  a  courteous  welcome,  and  one  or  two  remarks 
of  a  character  personally  complimentary,  said,  in  substance,  that  he  felt 
great  interest  in  the  condition  of  things  in  our  country;  that  he  was  very 
anxious  our  difficulties  should  be  settled  amicably;  that  he  had  been  and 
yet  was  ready  to  offer  his  kind  offices,  if  such  offer  would  be  mutually 
agreeable  to  the  contending  parties;  that  whatever  tended  to  affect  in¬ 
juriously  our  interests  was  detrimental  to  the  interests  of  France,  and  that 
he  desired  a  perpetuation  of  the  Union  of  the  States,  with  some  additional 
remarks  of  like  tenor  and  character.  His  observations  were  in  the  same 
vein  as  those  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  and  I  doubt  not  were  the 
frank  expressions  of  his  views  on  this  subject. 

Immediately  after  the  formal  part  of  my  presentation  had  closed,  and  my 
letters  of  credence  been  delivered,  he  entered  for  a  short  time  into  general 
conversation.  Upon  taking  my  leave  of  the  Emperor  I  was  conducted  by 
the  grand  chamberlain  to  the  apartments  of  the  Empress,  and  there  pre¬ 
sented  to  her.  She  repeated  to  some  extent  the  same  views  already  pre 
sented  by  the  Emperor.  My  reception  at  the  palace  was  in  every  respect 
agreeable.  On  Monday,  the  20th  instant,  I  called  again  on  Mr.  Thouvenel, 
in  company  with  Mr.  Sanford,  (our  minister  to  Belgium,)  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining,  if  possible,  a  little  more  distinct  information  as  to  what  France 
meant  by  the  terms  “neutral  rights”  and  “belligerent”  rights;  how  far  he 
considered  such  rights  as  extending  to  the  capture  and  condemnation  of 
prizes  in  the  ports  of  France,  Ac.  He  said  in  reply,  in  substance,  that  they 
held  that  the  flag  covers  the  cargo;  and  that  if  a  southern  ship  carrying 
neutral  property  wras  captured,  the  property  would  not  be  condemned,  Ac. 
He  hoped  our  government  would  recognize  principles  for  which  it  had 
always  contended.  I  told  him  it  would  certainly  do  so,  but  the  question 
here  was,  whether  there  was  a  jiocj;  that  our  government  insisted  that  the 
confederates,  being  merely  in  rebellion,  had  no  flag,  and  I  could  not  exactly 
understand  how  a  foreign  government  which  had  not  recognized  them  as  an 
independent  power  could  recognize  them  as  having  a  flag.  He  said,  further 
more,  that  the  French  government  had  given  no  warning  to  their  citizens, 
Ac.,  (as  the  English  government  had,)  by  proclamation,  because  it  was  un¬ 
necessary;  that  the  statute  law  of  France  (of  1825,  April  10,  1  think)  de¬ 
clared  that  any  French  citizen  taking  service  under  a  foreign  power  lost  all 
claim  to  protection  as  a  citizen;  that  if  a  subject  of  France  should  take 
service  on  board  of  a  letter  of  marque  licensed  by  the  Confederate  States,  it 
would  be,  as  I  understood  him,  piratical  on  the  part  of  such  subject,  lie 
said,  furthermore,  that  no  letters  of  marque  could  be  fitted  out  in  their  ports, 
or  ecen  sheltered  there,  unless  they  came  in  from  necessity,  (as  stress  of 
weather,  Ac.,)  and  then  could  remain,  i  think,  but  twenty-four  hours;  that 
consequently  there  could  be  no  bringing  of  prizes  into  French  ports,  and 
while  there  a  condemnation  of  them  in  the  courts  of  the  southern  States. 
His  conversation  on  this  part  of  the  case  was  very  satisfactory,  and  he 

13 


194 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


promised  me  a  reference  in  writing  to  the  French  statutes  bearing  on  the 
question.  He  added  that  the  French  government  had  addressed  certain 
interrogatories  to  our  government,  and  would  await  their  answer.  The 
disposition  of  this  government  to  keep  on  friendly  relations  with  us  is,  I 
think,  manifest,  and  it  will  not,  I  judge,  be  diminished  by  the  obvious  fact  that 
certain  portions  of  the  public  men  and  the  press  of  England  are  felicitating 
themselves  on  the  condition  of  things  in  America.  The  policy  of  having  a 
heavy  commercial  power  in  the  west,  as  some  counterpoise  to  the  marine 
power  of  England,  is  too  manifest  to  escape  a  mind  so  sagacious  as  that  of 
the  present  Emperor  of  the  French.  I  had  taken  the  liberty  before  the  re¬ 
ception  of  your  last  despatch,  dated  4th  instant,  of  assuring  all  persons, 
official  and  otherwise,  with  whom  I  came  in  contact,  that  the  most  effective 
measures  were  being  taken  by  our  government  to  crush  out  this  causeless 
and  wicked  rebellion,  and  that  I  believed  such  efforts  would  be  continued 
to  the  end;  that  the  fears  (which  existed  in  some  quarters)  that  the  govern¬ 
ment  would  again  temporize,  and  lose  the  advantage  which  the  present  de¬ 
termined  enthusiasm  of  the  people  gave  to  it,  were  groundless.  1  find  very 
strong  feelings  existing  here  in  behalf  of  the  Union  among  the  American 
citizens  from  the  northern  States,  and  a  determination  to  support  the  govern¬ 
ment  with  men  and  money. 

v|/  O/  Or  Or  Or  ^  Or  Or 

^  ^  ^ 

I  have  had  many  applications  since  here  by  foreigners  for  service  as 
officers  in  the  army  of  the  United  States,  and  I  understand  from  one  of  the 
former  secretaries  of  the  legation  that  many  applications  were  made  at  the 
office  of  the  legation  before  I  came.  There  was  one  case  only,  as  the  secre¬ 
tary  says,  of  an  application  at  the  office  of  the  legation  for  service  in  the 
army  of  the  south,  and  this  wTas  from  an  anonymous  correspondent,  the  note 
seeking  service  being  unsigned.  To  these  applications  I  have  said  that  our 
service  was  open  to  volunteers,  but  I  had  no  authority  to  commit  the  govern¬ 
ment  to  appointments;  that,  in  fact,  we  needed  arms  rather  than  men.  *  *  * 

No  formal  notice  of  the  blockade  of  southern  ports  has  been  given  to  the 
government  here,  unless  through  the  agency  of  the  French  minister  at 
Washington.  Indeed,  I  think  I  understood  Mr.  Thouvenel  to  say  that  they 
had  received  no  such  formal  notice  at  all.  I  shall  call  the  attention  of  Mr. 
Thouvenel  to  the  original  proclamation  when  I  communicate  to  him  (as  I 
shall  at  once  do)  the  additional  proclamation  (just  received)  of  the  blockade 
of  the  ports  of  Virginia  ajid  North  Carolina. 

xlx  .U  .1.  ^ 

^  ^  ^ 

I  have  opened,  since  here,  (directed  to  my  predecessor,)  a  copy  of  the 
President’s  proclamation  as  to  the  blockade  of  the  ports  of  Virginia  and 
North  Carolina,  dated  27th  April,  1861.  I  received  likewise  despatch  No.  4 
last  night,  containing  views  of  the  government  at  Washington  as  to  the 
abolition  of  privateering,  and  enclosing  to  me  a  commission  to  effect  with 
the  French  government  a  treaty  for  that  purpose,  with  the  form  of  such 
treaty.  This  is  of  great  importance,  and  will  affect  in  a  material  degree  the 
means  of  defence  on  the  part  of  our  country  in  time  of  war.  I  shall  pro¬ 
ceed  in  conformity,  however,  with  these  instructions  to  communicate  with 
the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  on  the  subject.  But  I  cannot  help  feeling, 
in  view  of  what  the  French  law  is,  as  heretofore  stated,  and  the  little  dan¬ 
ger  to  our  commerce  which  can  soon  arise  from  any  action  of  this  govern¬ 
ment  or  of  its  subjects  from  privateers,  that  I  had  better  attempt  again  to 
obtain  a  provision  exempting  from  seizure  jwivate  property  afloat  (unless 
contraband)  the  same  as  private  property  is  now  exempt  on  land.  I  should 
very  much  regret  an  opportunity  lost  to  obtain  such  a  treaty  provision,  if 
possible,  before  we  give  up  that  species  of  volunteer  marine  by  which  we 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


195 


are  enabled  in  some  degree  to  affect  the  commerce  of  other  nations,  having 
a  heavier  naval  marine,  while  they  are  destroying  our  own.  The  Emperor 
is  about  to  leave  Paris  for  the  country,  and  it  is  doubtful  if  great  expedition 
can  be  had  in  this  matter  ;  but,  acting  under  the  direct  instructions  of  the 
government  at  home,  I  shall  incur  no  unnecessary  delay  in  carrying  those 
instructions  (if  I  can  procure  no  better  terms)  into  effect. 


I  have  received  your  despatch  (No.  7)  containing  instructions  as  to  matters 
to  be  communicated  to  Mr.  Thouvenel  in  reference  to  the  unity  of  the  cabinet 
at  Washington  and  the  intentions  of  the  government  to  prosecute  the  war 
with  the  utmost  effect. 

I  will,  at  the  earliest  moment,  so  state  to  Mr.  Thouvenel,  though  it  will  be 
to  some  extent  a  restatement  of  what  has  already  been  said.  There  has,  I 
fear,  been  some  misapprehension  upon  the  minds  of  the  authorities  here  upon 
this  subject. 

Since  my  arrival  here  my  engagements,  personal  and  official,  have  been 
constant  ;  so  much  so  that  it  has  not  been  in  my  power  to  communicate  as 
promptly  with  your  department  as  I  would  have  desired. 

^  ^ 


Your  very  obedient  servant, 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


WM.  L.  DAYTON. 


A. 

Your  Majesty  :  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  your  Imperial  Majesty  these, 
my  letters  of  credence  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
accrediting  me  as  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  near  to 
your  Majesty. 

By  these  letters  it  is  made  my  especial  duty,  as  it  will  certainly  be  my 
pleasure,  with  the  assent  of  your  Majesty,  to  cultivate  and  strengthen  the 
friendship  and  good  correspondence  which  has  heretofore  existed  between 
France  and  the  United  States,  and  as  far  as  possible  to  preserve  and  advance 
the  interest  and  happiness  of  both  nations.  The  people  of  the  United  States 
have  not  forgotten,  nor  can  they  ever  forget,  that  France  was  their  first  ally, 
and  throughout  the  whole  period  of  their  national  existence  has  been  (with 
a  passing  cloud  only)  their  constant  friend.  An  unbroken  intercourse  of 
good  offices  and  kind  feelings  between  two  great  nations  for  so  long  a  period 
affords  just  cause  of  pride  and  congratulation  to  both.  Each  year  has  con¬ 
tinued  to  enlarge  those  business  interests  which  bind  us  together,  and  I  am 
happy  to  know  that  at  no  period  in  our  past  history  have  those  interests 
been  more  prosperous  than  under  the  wise,  liberal,  and  enlightened  policy 
of  your  Imperial  Majesty.  All  our  recollections  of  the  past,  all  our  interests 
of  the  present,  and  all  our  hopes  for  the  future,  prompt  the  United  States  to 
cultivate  with  sedulous  care  those  friendly  relations  with  the  government  of 
France  which  have  existed  so  long  and  been  productive  to  each  nation  of 
results  so  auspicious. 

I  have  it  specially  in  charge  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to 
give  assurance  to  your  Imperial  Majesty  of  his  disposition  to  cultivate  such 
friendly  relations;  to  assure  your  Majesty  personally  of  his  high  respect  and 
appreciation  ;  to  tender  to  you,  to  the  Empress,  your  imperial  consort,  and 
to  each  of  the  members  of  the  imperial  family,  his  best  wishes  for  their 


196 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


health,  prosperity,  and  happiness.  Permit  me  only  to  add  that  the  mission 
near  to  your  Imperial  Majesty,  with  which  I  have  been  honored,  is  one  most 
grateful  to  my  feelings,  and  without  neglecting  the  interests  of  my  own  gov¬ 
ernment,  I  shall  endeavor  so  to  discharge  its  duties  as  to  make  my  residence 
here  entirely  agreeable  to  your  Majesty. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 


No.  6.]  Paris,  May  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Immediate^’  after  closing  my  last  despatch  I  wrote  to  Mr.  Thouvenel 
a  note  apprising  him  that  I  was  fully  authorized  to  enter  into  a  convention 
with  the  government  of  France  in  respect  to  privateering,  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  and  the  matter  of  blockade,  and  requesting  him,  if  disposed  to 
renew  negotiations  upon  these  subjects,  to  name  a  day  for  conference. 

My  note  was  not  sent  uutil  the  25th  instant.  A  copy  is  attached,  marked 
letter  A. 

On  the  same  day,  to  wit,  the  25th  of  the  present  month,  I  sent  to  Mr. 
Thouvenel  a  copy  of  the  President’s  proclamation  of  the  blockade  of  the 
ports  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  referring,  at  the  same  time,  to  the  pre¬ 
vious  blockade  of  the  other  southern  ports.  A  copy  of  my  note  is  attached, 
marked  letter  C. 

On  the  24th  instant  I  received  from  the  minister  of  war  a  note  as  to  cer¬ 
tain  fire-arms  for  the  State  of  Virginia,  applied  for  by  my  predecessor,  Mr. 
Faulkner;  a  copy  of  which  note,  marked  D,  together  with  my  answer  there¬ 
to,  marked  E,  is  hereunto  attached. 

;jc  >|c  ;fc  ;fc  ;ji 

I  recently  received  from  the  agent  of  our  Havre  line  of  steamers  a  request 
that  I  would  (by  application  to  the  government  for  munitions  of  war)  aid 
him  to  put  the  steamer  Fulton  in  a  condition  of  defence  on  her  homeward 
voyage;  which  I  did,  so  far  as  I  could,  by  presenting  his  request  to  the  gov¬ 
ernment.  A  copy  of  his  request,  indorsed  by  me,  is  herewith  attached, 
marked  H.  I  presume  the  request  was  granted,  as  I  have  heard  nothing 
since  from  the  agent,  and  the  steamer  leaves  her  port  to-day. 

I  have  just  received  the  despatches,  by  the  last  steamer,  directed  to  Mr. 
Sanford,  to  whom  I  immediately  delivered  them ;  and  likewise  your  circular 
to  me  upon  the  subject  of  passports,  with  which  I  shall  carefully  comply. 

Mr.  Thouvenel  has  promptly  answered  my  note  informing  him  I  was  au¬ 
thorized  to  enter  into  a  convention  as  to  privateering,  &c.,  and  has  desig¬ 
nated  to-morrow,  at  4  p.  m.,  for  a  conference.  In  my  next  despatch  I  shall 
be  able,  doubtless,  to  give  }7ou  some  information  as  to  the  views  of  the 
French  government  on  this  subject.  Mr.  Marsh  has  been  here,  engaged  in 
doing  good  service  by  matter  communicated  for  use  through  the  English 
press. 

Mr.  Burlingame  is  remaining  here  for  a  short  time,  acting  under  the  advice 
of  his  brother  diplomatists,  owing  to  matter  confidential!}7  communicated 
.from  Vienna. 

With  much  consideration,  your  obedient  servant, 


Hon.  Wm.  Id.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


WM.  L.  DAYTON. 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


197 


A. 


Paris,  May  24,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  that  I  am  fully  authorized 
by  my  government  to  enter  into  a  convention  with  the  government  of  France 
in  reference  to  the  subject  of  privateering,  the  rights  of  neutrals,  and  the 
matter  of  blockade. 

If,  therefore,  the  government  of  his  Imperial  Majesty  remains  disposed  to 
renew  negotiations  upon  these  subjects,  I  shall  be  happy  to  have  a  confer¬ 
ence  with  your  excellency  at  such  time  as  your  excellency  may  indicate. 

With  great  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Mr.  Thouvenel,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


C. 


Paris,  May  24,  1861. 

Sir:  I  beg  to  enclose  to  your  excellency  a  copy  of  a  proclamation  issued 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  on  the  27th  of  April  last,  establishing 
a  blockade  of  the  ports  of  the  States  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina. 

A  prior  proclamation,  dated  19th  April  last,  established  a  blockade  of  the 
ports  of  the  States  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Florida,  Alabama,  Louisiana, 
Mississippi,  and  Texas,  of  which  your  excellency  has  doubtless  had  notice. 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  excellency’s  obedient 
servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Mr.  Thouvenel,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


D. 


Paris,  May  24,  1861. 

Sir:  The  27th  September,  1860,  your  predecessor  having  requested  me  to 
have  the  goodness  to  deliver  to  him,  from  the  state  arsenal,  four  fire-arms 
(4  arrnes  a  feu)  and  two  other  arms  ( armes  blanches)  for  the  State  of  Vir¬ 
ginia,  I  authorized  the  said  delivery,  with  the  approbation  of  the  Emperor; 
and  the  22d  of  October,  1860,  I  informed  Mr.  Faulkner  that  the  artillery 
board  of  Paris  held  these  arms  at  the  disposition  of  the  Virginia  commis¬ 
sioners. 

Up  to  this  moment  there  has  not  been  a  delivery,  and  the  letters  of  the 
director  colonel  of  artillery,  as  also  my  despatch  of  the  21st  of  March  last 
to  Mr.  Faulkner,  remain  unanswered. 

Interpreting  this  silence  as  a  renunciation  of  the  request  of  the  State  of 
Virginia,  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that,  unless  you  intimate  a  desire  to 
the  contrary  in  the  course  of  a  few  days,  I  shall  order  the  director  of  artil¬ 
lery  at  Paris  to  consider  the  authorization  of  the  22d  of  October,  1860, 

as  null. 

Accept,  sir,  the  assurance  of  the  most  distinguished  consideration  with 
which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  very  humble  and  verv  obedient  servant, 

RANDON, 

Le  Marechal  de  France ,  Ministre  Secretaire  d'etat  de  la  Guerre. 


198 


COKRESPONDENCE. 


E. 

Paris,  May  26,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  your  letter  of  the  24th  instant, 
calling  my  attention  to  the  fact  that  my  predecessor,  on  the  27th  of  Septem¬ 
ber  last,  requested  you  to  have  the  goodness  to  deliver  to  him,  from  the  gov¬ 
ernment  arsenal,  four  fire-arms  (4  armes  a  feu)  and  two  other  arms  ( armes 
blanches)  for  the  State  of  Virginia,  and  that  you  authorized  the  said  delivery, 
with  the  approbation  of  the  Emperor,  on  the  22d  of  October,  1860;  and  that 
you  informed  Mr.  Faulkner  that  the  artillery  board  of  Paris  held  those  arms 
at  the  disposition  of  the  Virginia  delegates;  that  up  to  the  date  of  your 
note  to  me  the  letter  from  the  colonel  of  the  artillery  staff  and  your  own 
despatches  of  the  21st  of  March  last,  addressed  to  Mr.  Faulkner,  have 
remained  unanswered,  &c. 

I  beg  to  say  to  your  excellency  that  I  am  altogether  ignorant  of  the  causes 
of  delay  on  the  part  of  my  predecessor  in  answering  the  communications 
referred  to,  and  asking  for  the  delivery  of  the  arms  in  question. 

I  pray  you,  sir,  to  accept  for  yourself,  and  convey  to  the  Emperor,  my 
grateful  acknowledgments,  in  behalf  of  the  United  States,  for  the  courtesy 
extended  in  the  expression  of  a  readiness  to  grant  the  request  of  my  prede¬ 
cessor;  while  I  deem  it  proper  to  say  at  once  that  the  request  for  the  arms 
referred  to  will  not,  under  existing  circumstances,  be  renewed  by  me  in 
behalf  of  the  State  of  Virginia. 

I  beg  to  assure  you,  sir,  of  the  high  consideration  with  wdiich  I  have  the 
honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Mons.  le  Marechal  Comte  Randon, 

Minister  cle  la  Guerre. 


H. 


Paris,  May  23,  1861. 

Excellency:  The  necessity  which  exists  for  arming  our  steamer,  the 
Fulton,  against  any  attack  of  the  privateers  of  the  southern  confederacy 
obliges  Captain  Walton  to  provide  himself  with  two  hundred  rifles.  These 
guns,  which  we  have  purchased  at  Leige,  (Belgium,)  will  be  delivered  to¬ 
day  or  to-morrow  at  Havre. 

But  we  have  no  cartridges  for  these  guns,  and  are  obliged  to  buy  them 
in  France,  and  cannot  obtain  them  without  an  authorization  from  the  min¬ 
ister  of  wrar.  We  are  thus  obliged  to  appeal  to  you,  to  beg  your  power¬ 
ful  influence  in  obtaining  the  necessary  munitions. 

We  desire  that  the  French  government  furnish  us,  delivered  on  board  the 
steamer  Fulton,  at  Havre,  tiventy  thousand  cartouches  for  hunting  rifles ,  of 
the  calibre  17T8ff  for  the  muzzle  of  the  guns.  Either  our  house,  at  Paris,  or 
that  of  Messrs.  W.  Selim  &  Co.,  at  Havre,  will  pay  the  bills. 

The  steamer  Fulton  will  quit  Havre  Tuesday  morning,  28th  instant,  and 
it  will  be  necessary  that  the  munition  should  be  delivered  Monday. 

We  pray  your  excellency  to  accept,  in  entram,  the  expression  of  the  pro¬ 
found  gratitude  and  our  distinguished  consideration  of  your  excellency’s  most 
obedient  servants, 

SHELBERT,  KANE  &  CO., 

8  Place  de  la  Bourse. 

His  Excellency  Mr.  Dayton, 

Minister  of  the  United  Mates  of  America,  Paris. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


199 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 


No.  10.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  May  30,  1861. 

Sir:  Mr.  Sanford,  who  was  requested  by  me  to  look  to  our  interests  in 
Paris  in  the  interval  which  might  elapse  between  the  withdrawal  of  Mr. 
Faulkner  and  your  own  arrival,  has  transmitted  to  me  (in  his  despatch  No. 
2)  an  account  of  a  very  interesting  conversation  which  he  has  recently  held 
with  Mr.  Thouvenel  on  our  internal  affairs. 

In  that  conversation  Mr.  Thouvenel  intimated  that,  in  view  of  the  great 
commercial  interests  which  are  involved  in  the  domestic  controversy  which 
is  now  agitating  the  United  States,  the  French  government  had  felt  itself 
constrained  to  take  measures,  in  conjunction  with  the  government  of  Great 
Britain,  to  meet  a  condition  of  things  which  imperiled  those  interests.  That 
it  had  been  decided  that  communications  of  a  similar  tenor  should  be 
addressed  by  both  of  those  governments  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States,  and  that  those  communications  would  be  forwarded  in  the  current 
week.  Mr.  Thouvenel  kindly  foreshadowed  the  points  of  those  communi¬ 
cations. 

As  those  papers  may  be  expected  to  arrive  by,  perhaps,  the  next  steamer, 
I  shall  reserve  comments  upon  the  propositions  indicated  until  they  shall 
thus  be  fully  and  directly  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  President. 

There  are,  however,  some  points  in  the  conversation,  or  suggested  by  it, 
which  I  cannot  properly  suffer  to  pass  i  nnoticed. 

First.  I  desire  that  Mr.  Thouvenel  may  be  informed  that  this  government 
cannot  but  regard  any  communications  held  by  the  French  government,  even 
though  unofficial,  with  the  agents  of  the  insurrectionary  movement  in  this 
country  as  exceptionable  and  injurious  to  the  dignity  and  honorof  the  United 
States.  They  protest  against  this  intercourse,  however,  not  so  much  on  that 
ground  as  on  another.  They  desire  to  maintain  the  most  cordial  relations 
with  the  government  of  France,  and  would  therefore,  if  possible,  refrain 
from  complaint.  But  it  is  manifest  that  even  an  unofficial  reception  of  the 
emissaries  of  disunion  has  a  certain  though  measured  tendency  to  give  them 
a  prestige  which  would  encourage  their  efforts  to  prosecute  a  civil  war 
destructive  to  the  prosperity  of  this  country  and  aimed  at  the  overthrow  of 
the  government  itself.  It  is  earnestly  hoped  that  this  protest  may  be  suffi¬ 
cient  to  relieve  this  government  from  the  necessity  of  any  action  on  the 
unpleasant  subject  to  which  it  relates. 

Secondly.  The  United  States  cannot  for  a  moment  allow  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment  to  rest  under  the  delusive  belief  that  they  will  be  content  to  have 
the  confederate  States  recognized  as  a  belligerent  power  by  States  with 
which  this  nation  is  in  amitv.  No  concert  of  action  among  foreign  States 
so  recognizing  the  insurgents  can  reconcile  the  United  States  to  such  a 
proceeding,  whatever  may  be  the  consequences  of  resistance. 

Thirdly.  The  President  turns  away  from  these  points  of  apprehended 
difference  of  opinion  between  the  two  governments  to  notice  other  and  more 
agreeable  subjects. 

The  tone  of  Mr.  Thouvenel’s  conversation  is  frank,  generous,  and  cordial; 
and  this  government  feels  itself  bound  by  new  ties  to  France  when  her 
Emperor  avows  his  desire  for  the  perpetual  union  of  the  States.  Especially 
does  this  government  acknowledge  that  it  is  profoundly  moved  by  the 
declaration  of  his  Majesty,  that  he  would  be  willing  to  act  as  mediator  in 
the  civil  strife  that  unhappily  convulses  our  country.  These  expressions  of 
good  will  are  just  what  have  been  expected  from  the  Emperor  of  France. 
This  government  desires  that  his  Majesty  may  be  informed  that  it  indulges 


200 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


not  the  least  apprehension  of  a  dissolution  of  the  Union  in  this  painful 
controversy.  A  favorable  issue  is  deemed  certain.  What  is  wanted  is  that 
the  war  may  be  as  short,  and  attended  by  as  few  calamities  at  home  and  as 
few  injuries  to  friendly  nations,  as  possible.  No  mediation  could  modify  in 
the  least  degree  the  convictions  of  policy  and  duty  under  which  this  gov¬ 
ernment  is  acting  ;  while  foreign  intervention,  even  in  the  friendly  form  of 
mediation,  would  produce  new  and  injurious  complications.  We  are  free  to 
confess  that  so  cordial  is  our  regard  for  the  Emperor  and  our  confidence 
in  his  wisdom  and  justice,  that  his  mediation  would  be  accepted  if  all 
intervention  of  that  kind  were  not  deemed  altogether  inadmissible.  This  gov¬ 
ernment  perceives,  as  it  thinks,  that  the  French  government  is  indulging  in 
an  exaggerated  estimate  of  the  moral  power  and  material  forces  of  the 
insurrection.  The  government  of  the  United  States  cheerfully  excuses  this 
error,  because  it  knows  how  unintelligible  the  working  of  the  American 
system  and  the  real  character  of  the  American  people  are  to  European 
nations.  This  government  knows,  moreover,  and  painfully  feels,  that  the 
commercial  interests  of  European  states  are  so  deeply  involved  in  the 
restoration  of  our  domestic  peace  as  to  excite  the  highest  anxiety  and 
impatience  011  their  part.  But  it  desires  the  French  government  to  reflect 
that  our  commercial  interests  involved  in  the  issue  are  even  greater  than 
their  own  ;  and  that  every  motive  that  France  can  have  for  desiring  peace 
operates  still  more  powerfuily  on  ourselves,  besides  a  thousand  motives 
peculiar  to  ourselves  alone.  The  measures  we  have  adopted,  and  are  now 
vigorously  pursuing,  will  terminate  the  unhappy  contest  at  an  early  day, 
and  be  followed  by  benefits  to  ourselves  and  to  all  nations  greater  and  better 
assured  than  those  which  have  hitherto  attended  our  national  progress. 
Nothing  is  wanting  to  that  success  except  that  foreign  nations  shall  leave 
us,  as  is  our  right,  to  manage  our  own  affairs  in  our  own  way.  They,  as 
well  as  we,  can  only  sutler  by  their  intervention.  No  one,  we  are  sure,  can 
judge  better  than  the  Emperor  of  France  how  dangerous  and  deplorable 
would  be  the  emergency  that  should  intrude  Europeans  into  the  political 
contests  of  the  American  people. 

1  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  dsc.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts  ] 


Paris,  May  30,  1861. 

Sir:  Since  the  date  of  my  despatch  No.  6  I  have  had  an  interview  with 
Mr.  Thou  vend. 

I  told  him  I  was  authorized  to  accept  the  propositions  adopted  at  the 
congress  of  Paris  in  1856,  but  with  the  desire  expressed  by  the  President 
that  the  provisions  should  be  added  exempting  private  property  afloat,  un¬ 
less  contraband,  from  seizure  and  confiscation.  I  did  not  say,  nor  did  he 
ask,  whether  the  four  propositions  would  be  accepted  without  amendment. 
He  said  nothing  could  be  done  except  by  conference  with  the  other  powers, 
but  if  1  would  submit  the  proposition  in  writing,  which  I  shall  at  once  do, 
he  would  immediately  address  the  other  powers,  and  we  would  probably  re¬ 
ceive  an  answer  in  ten  or  twelve  days. 

I  have  been  induced  to  suggest  again  the  adoption  of  this  amendment 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


201 


exempting’  private  property  afloat  from  seizure  and  confiscation:  (1.)  From 
the  preference  or  wish  of  the  President  expressed  in  your  letter  of  instruction. 
(2.)  From  the  great  importance,  as  it  seemed  to  me,  of  securing  the  adop¬ 
tion  of  the  principle,  if  possible,  before  the  United  States  should  give  up 
the  right  of  privateering.  (3.)  From  the  facts  patent  on  the  correspondence 
of  this  legation  in  1856,  whereby  it  appears  that  France  and  Russia  were 
both  favorably  disposed  at  that  time  to  the  adoption  of  the  principle  of  the 
amendment,  (see  Mr.  Marcy’s  despatch  to  Mr.  Mason,  No.  94,  dated  October 
4,  1856,  and  Mr.  Mason’s  confidential  letter  to  Mr.  Dallas,  of  December  6,  1856,) 
and  the  obvious  fact  that  it  would  be  the  interest  of  all  the  other  powers 
(having  little  naval  force)  to  concur  in  the  amendment.  (4.)  From  the  fact 
that  since  the  date  of  your  despatch  to  me  authorizing  the  acceptance  of  the 
four  propositions  adopted  by  the  congress  at  Paris,  Mr.  Sanford,  our  minister 
to  Belgium,  on  a  visit  to  England,  learned  from  Mr.  Adams  that  the  British 
government  had  given,  as  he  understood,  general  instructions  on  the  subject 
to  Lord  Lyons;  and  the  impression  made  on  the  mind  of  Mr.  Adams,  as  re¬ 
ported  to  me  by  Mr.  Sanford,  was  that  it  was  not  improbable  that  England 
would  now,  to  secure  our  concurrence  in  the  other  propositions,  concur  in 
the  amendment.  That  in  view  of  this  information,  Mr.  Adams,  who  had  like 
instructions  with  my  own,  had  referred  the  matter  back  to  be  treated  of 
and  discussed  at  Washington.  I  could  not,  therefore,  at  once  accept  the 
four  propositions,  pure  and  simple,  without  running  the  hazard  of  conflicting 
with  what  might  be  done  elsewhere. 

I  will  probably  receive  an  answer  from  Mr.  Thouvenel  (after  he  shall  huve 
communicated  my  proposition  to  the  other  powers)  before  even  I  shall  receive 
my  next  despatch  on  this  subject  from  Washington,  which  I  shall  await 
with  some  anxiety. 

^  ^  vL*  vT*  '  V  V*/ 

/p  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^ 

The  laws,  however,  in  connexion  with  the  practice  of  the  tribunals  of 
France  are,  I  think,  as  follows: 

1.  That  the  captain  who  accepts  a  commission  from  a  foreign  government 
and  takes  command  of  a  cruiser  is  guilty  of  a  piratical  act. 

2.  That  all  French  subjects  enlisting  on  board  of  such  cruiser,  without 
authority  of  the  Emperor,  lose  their  citizenship,  and  consequent^  forfeit 
their  right  to  the  protection  of  their  government. 

3.  That  the  principle  applied  in  the  French  tribunals  is  unlike  that  which 
has  been  applied  in  England  (and  I  fear  it  will  be  found  in  the  United  States) 
as  to  harboring  privateers;  and  while  their  prizes  are  in  a  neutral  port  having 
them  condemned  in  courts  of  admiralty  of  the  country  licensing  such  pri¬ 
vateer.  The  laws  and  practice  of  the  French  courts  do  not  admit  of  this. 
But  these  matters,  as  Mr.  Thouvenel  now  says,  must  be  all  left  for  determi¬ 
nation  to  the  tribunals  of  France. 

I  am  happy  to  say  that  there  is  no  disposition  manifested  here,  so  far  as 
I  have  observed,  to  favor  the  rebellion  in  our  southern  States,  or  to  recog¬ 
nize  them  as  an  independent  power.  All  recognition  of  rights  on  their  part 
is  for  commercial  purposes  only.  But  the  government  of  France  cannot,  it 
says,  look  at  this  rebellion  as  a  small  matter.  That,  embracing  as  it  does 
a  large  section  and  many  States,  they  cannot  apply  to  it  the  same  reasoning 
as  if  it  were  an  unimportant  matter  or  confined  to  a  small  locality. 

Mr.  Thouvenel  says  he  has  had  no  application  from  southern  commission¬ 
ers  for  any  purpose  of  recognition,  and  he  does  not  know  even  that  such 

persons  are  or  have  been  in  Paris. 

********* 

I  send  you  a  copy  of  “  Gallignani’s  Messenger,”  containing  a  report  of  the 


202 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


proceedings  of  a  large  and  enthusiastic  meeting  of  Americans  yesterday  at 
the  Hotel  du  Louvre. 

With  high  consideration,  vour  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  11. J  Paris,  June  — ,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  (No.  10)  was  received  by  me  on  the  18th  instant,  and 
its  substance  communicated  to  Mr.  Thouvenel  on  the  19th.  On  that  day  I 
had  with  him  an  interesting  conversation.  I  communicated  to  him  the  very 
kind  language  which  you  had  used  in  behalf  of  the  President  in  reference  to 
the  Emperor  and  his  willingness  to  mediate  between  the  north  and  south, 
should  such  mediation  be  desired.  Nothing  could  have  been  better  expressed 
than  the  language  of  your  own  despatch  ;  and,  without  formally  reading  it 
to  him,  I  endeavored  to  repeat,  substantially,  its  language.  Mr.  Thouvenel 
seemed  much  gratified  at  its  tone,  and  inasmuch  as  the  Emperor  had  made 
like  remarks  to  me  personally,  I  begged  that  your  reply  might  be  specially 
communicated  to  him,  which  was  readily  promised.  This,  as  you  may  infer, 
was  the  most  agreeable  part  of  my  duty,  as  connected  with  your  despatch. 

A  short  editorial  in  reference  to  the  recognition  of  the  independence  of 
Italy,  and  in  that  connexion  of  the  States  of  the  south,  which  is  herewith 
enclosed,  first  appeared  in  the  Patrie ,  (a  newspaper  published  in  this  city, 
and  which  has  heretofore  had  a  semi-official  character.)  It  was  republished 
on  Sunday  last  in  the  “  Moniteur”  without  remark,  thus  giving  it  an  official 
significance  which  would  not  otherwise  have  been  attached  to  it.  It  attracted 
much  attention  here,  and  some  anxiety.  I  resolved  that,  at  the  first  oppor¬ 
tunity,  I  would  seek  an  explanation  from  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs. 
After  my  communication  of  your  kind  remarks,  before  referred  to,  I  availed 
myself  of  the  opportunity  of  calling  his  attention  to  this  matter.  He  at 
once  said  that  his  own  attention  had  been  arrested  by  it;  that  it  was  a 
“silliness;”  that  Mr.  Persigny  (minister  of  the  interior)  was  more  dissatis¬ 
fied  with  it  even  than  he  was;  that  the  Patrie  had  ceased,  ten  days  ago,  to 
be  a  semi-official  paper;  that  he  did  not  know  how  the  paragraph  had  crept 
into  the  Moniteur,  but  that  Count  Walewski  (minister  of  state)  had  been 
out  of  the  city  for  ten  days  past,  and  that  as  a  consequence  matters  had  not 
had  the  usual  oversight.  He  read  me  a  note  from  the  count,  in  answer  to 
one  he  (Mr.  Thouvenel)  had  written,  inquiring  if  it  would  not  be  better  to 
insert  something  to  show  that  the  paragraph  was  printed  in  the  Moniteur 
by  mistake,  to  which  note  the  count  replied  that  he  thought  it  would  be 
giving  an  unnecessary  importance  to  the  matter,  and  in  that  view  Mr. 
Thouvenel,  upon  reflection,  concurred.  But  he  said  he  was  vexed  at  the 
insertion  in  the  Moniteur ,  and  at  the  commentaries  likely7"  to  be  made  upon  it. 
He  said,  furthermore,  (what  he  has  so  often  said  before,)  that  the  French 
government  had  no  sympathy  whatever  with  the  seceding  States  of  the 
south;  that  it  had  no  idea  of  recognizing  them  as  an  independent  power; 
that  should  they,  in  the  course  of  time,  obtain  a  status  as  an  independent 
power  among  nations,  and  show  themselves  able  to  maintain  that  posi- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


203 


tion,  the  French  government  might  ultimately  recognize  them;  but  this  would 
be  after  the  expiration  of  a  time  ample  to  test  their  ability  in  this  behalf.  He 
said,  incidentally,  three  or  four  years,  though  I  do  not  suppose  he  intended 
anything  by  this,  except  to  explain  more  fully  his  meaning. 

He  said,  furthermore,  he  had  received  Mr.  Rost,  (one  of  the  commissioners 
of  the  south,)  who  applied  to  him  through  a  third  party;  that  he  had  not 
applied  to  be  received  as  a  commissioner  from  the  south;  if  he  had  so  done 
he  would  not  have  received  him.  ****** 

.1.  v|/  yjy  0>  xl/  xl/  x*y  xj/  xl/ 

^  ^  ^  »p 

T  'P  'T*  '7'  'p  T“  *7* 

Mr.  Thouvenel  referred,  in  terms  of  satisfaction,  to  a  private  note  which 
he  had  received  from  you,  through  this  legation. 

I  have  just  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Perry,  our  charge  d’affaires  at  Madrid, 
under  date  of  the  16th  instant,  stating  that  on  the  next  or  following  day  a 
decree  of  that  government  would  be  made  in  reference  to  privateers  and 
Spanish  ports,  of  a  like  character,  in  the  general,  as  that  which  has  been  made 
by  the  French  government.  This,  in  view  of  the  locality  of  certain  ports  of 
Spain,  will  be  an  important  benefit  to  us. 

With  a  blockade  of  the  ports  of  the  south,  and  the  ports  of  other  nations 
closed  against  them,  there  will  be  little  hope  left  for  profitable  marauding 
on  the  high  seas. 

I  think  I  may  say  with  some  confidence  that  all  the  efforts  of  the  agents  of 
the  confederates  on  this  side  of  the  channel  have  thus  far  been  abortive.  They 
have  no  encouragement  to  their  hopes  of  recognition.  They  have  met  with 
no  success  in  their  attempts  to  negotiate  a  loan.  I  do  not  believe  they  have 
got  any  considerable  supply  of  arms,  and  I  think  that  we  know  substantially 
what  they  have  done  and  are  attempting  to  do.  My  only  fear  is  of  a  possible, 
not  probable,  reverse  to  our  arms  in  Virginia,  and  a  rush,  under  the  excite¬ 
ment  of  a  first  victory,  upon  the  city  of  Washington.  Should  they  get 
possession,  by  any  possibility,  of  that  point,  the  prestige  it  would  give  them 
(aside  from  any  strategic  advantage)  might  be  productive  of  most  unhappy 
results.  God  grant  that  no  such  future  may  hang  over  us. 

vL»  xl/  xl/  xl/  xl.  xjy  xl/  xi»  xi/ 

*7^  'jx  »Jx  ^Jx  >fx  ^X  yjx  »T* 

vL/  xV/  xl/  >1/  xl/  ^  xl/  xj/ 

rfX  -^X  /]x  /[x  /yx  X  ^TX  /|x  x  /Jx 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


[Translation.] 


The  “  Patrie”  says: 

It  is  asserted  that  negotiations  will  be  opened  to  bring  about  the  re¬ 
establishment  of  diplomatic  relations  between  France  and  the  court  of  Turin. 
If  they  take  effect,  the  consequence  will  be  the  recognition  of  the  Italian 
kingdom,  composed  of  the  provinces  and  states  which  have  passed  under 
the  sceptre  of  his  Majesty  King  Victor  Emanuel,  at  the  close  of  occurrences 
upon  which  France  has  not  at  this  time  occasion  to  express  herself,  but 
which  have  transpired  through  favor  of  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
recognized  in  Europe. 

The  renewal  of  diplomatic  relations  with  Turin  would  not  imply  on  the 
part  of  France,  on  the  subject  of  the  policy  of  the  Italian  kingdom,  any 


204 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


judgment  upon  the  past,  nor  any  solidarity  for  the  future.  It  would  make 
it  appear  that  the  government  de  facto  of  this  new  state  is  sufficiently  es¬ 
tablished  to  render  it  possible  to  entertain  with  it  those  international  rela¬ 
tions  which  the  interests  of  the  two  countries  imperatively  require. 

France,  in  her  new  atiitude,  would  not  purpose  to  interfere  at  all  with  the 
interna]  or  external  affairs  of  the  Italian  kingdom,  which  must  be  sole  judge 
of  its  administration,  as  it  is  of  its  future  and  its  destinies.  It  will  act 
towards  it  as  at  some  future  day  the  great  European  powers  will  act  upon 
the  American  question,  by  recognizing  the  new  republic  of  the  southern 
States  when  that  republic  shall  have  established  a  government  resting  on 
foundations  which  will  permit  the  formation  of  international  relations  with 
it  conducive  to  general  interests. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  9.]  Paris,  June  I,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  a  circular  dated 
May  6,  1861,  giving  instructions  in  respect  to  granting  passports. 

I  understood  him  (M.  Thouvenel)  to  say  an  answer  could  be  got  within 
ten  or  twelve  days  from  the  other  powers.  I  was  surprised  at  the  briefness 
of  the  time  stated,  but  supposed  he  meant  to  consult  the  representatives  of 
those  powers- at  this  court;  but  his  remark,  as  I  am  now  informed,  applied 
to  a  consultation  with  certain  of  the  ministers  of  the  French  government 
only.  The  statement  in  the  American  newspapers,  that  the  Department  of 
State  had  authorized  the  acceptance  of  the  Paris  treaty  of  1856  (if  that  is 
understood  by  Lord  Lyons  to  be  a  distinct  acceptance  of  the  treaty,  pure 
and  simple)  will,  I  fear,  prevent  all  chance  of  other  terms.  The  late  annun¬ 
ciation  of  the  course  of  the  British  government,  shutting  their  ports  against 
privateers,  (which  so  much  limits  the  belligerent  rights  of  the  so-called 
Confederate  States,)  you  will  consider,  perhaps,  renders  the  accession  of 
our  government  to  the  treaty  of  Paris  at  this  time  of  less  importance  than 
it  otherwise  would  be.  I  think,  from  remarks  in  the  New  York  press, 
(Herald  and  Times,  and  perhaps  other  prints  which  I  have  not  seen,)  that 
the  force  and  efficacy  of  an  accession  by  our  government  to  the  treaty  of 
Paris  is  misunderstood.  If  I  understand  the  view  of  these  foreign  govern¬ 
ments,  such  accession  by  us  would  merely  bind  our  hands  as  respects  priva¬ 
teering;  it  would  not  at  all  enlarge  our  rights  as  against  a  belligerent 
power  not  a  party  to  the  treaty;  nor  would  it  bind  these  European  govern¬ 
ments  to  enforce  the  laws  of  piracy  as  against  such  belligerent  power  not  a 
party  to  the  treaty.  If  they  admit  the  Confederate  States  as  a  belligerent 
power,  and  recognize  them  for  even  commercial  purposes,  (which,  I  take  it, 
is  what  they  mean  to  do,)  our  accession  to  the  treaty  of  Paris  will  not 
change  their  action  on  this  question.  The  status  of  these  rebellious  States 
as  respects  privateering  will  remain  where  it  was;  at  least  that  is  the  view 
which  I  think  is  and  will  be  taken  of  this  question  by  England  and  France. 
But  however  this  may  be,  I  am  happy  to  know  that,  in  suggesting  to  the 
French  government  the  amendment  to  that  treaty,  (securing  private  prop¬ 
erty  afloat,  unless  contraband,)  I  have  occasioned  no  unnecessary  delay,  in¬ 
asmuch  as  Mr.  Adams  has  referred  the  whole  matter  back  to  Washington, 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


205 


and  as  soon  as  you  shall  act  there,  or  before,  upon  a  notification  to  me,  I 
can  act  here. 

'l;  4;  4;  4;  4;  4;  4/  4/ 

^  'r  *T*  ^  'T'  'T'  'T'  'r 

With  high  consideration,  I  have,  &c., 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  13.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  May  22d  (No.  5)  has  been  received.  Your  safe 
arrival  at  your  post  of  duty  in  this  crisis,  when  our  relations  to  foreign 
countries,  and  especially  to  France,  have  assumed  a  degree  of  interest  and 
importance  never  known  before  since  the  Constitution  was  established,  is  a 
source  of  sincere  satisfaction. 

The  President  approves  the  sentiments  you  expressed  on  your  presenta¬ 
tion  to  his  Imperial  Majesty.  The  manner  in  which  he  received  you,  and  the 
friendly  expressions  made  by  himself,  as  well  as  those  which  were  employed 
by  Mr.  Thouvenel,  although  not  unexpected,  have  given  us  the  liveliest 
satisfaction. 

We  appreciate  highly  the  Emperor’s  assurance  that  he  would  mediate  be¬ 
tween  the  government  and  the  insurgents,  with  a  view  to  the  maintenance 
and  preservation  of  the  Union,  if  such  intervention  were  deemed  desirable  by 
us  ;  and  that  generous  offer  imposes  a  new  obligation  upon  us  toward 
France,  which  we  acknowledge  with  sincere  pleasure. 

If  mediation  were  at  all  admissible  in  this  grave  case,  that  of  his  Majesty 
would  not  be  declined.  But  the  present  paramount  duty  of  the  government  is  to 
save  the  integrity  of  the  American  Union.  Absolute,  self-sustaining  inde¬ 
pendence  is  the  first  and  most  indispensable  element  of  national  existence. 
This  is  a  republican  nation  ;  all  its  domestic  affairs  must  be  conducted  and 
even  adjusted  in  constitutional  republican  forms  and  upon  constitutional 
republican  principles.  This  is  an  American  nation,  and  its  internal  affairs 
must  not  only  be  conducted  with  reference  to  its  peculiar  continental  posi¬ 
tion,  but  by  and  through  American  agencies  alone.  These  are  simple  ele¬ 
mentary  principles  of  administration,  no  one  of  which  can  be  departed  from 
with  safety  in  any  emergency  whatever  ;  nor  could  it  be  departed  from  with 
the  public  consent,  which  rightfully  regulates,  through  constitutionally  con¬ 
stituted  popular  authorities,  the  entire  business  of  the  government. 

I  have  set  them  forth  in  no  invidious,  uncharitable,  or  ungenerous  spirit. 
I  state  them  fairly  and  broadly,  because  I  know  the  magnanimity  of  the  Em¬ 
peror  of  France,  and  I  know  that  he  can  appreciate  directness  and  candor  in 
diplomacy.  I  know,  moreover,  that  he  is  a  friend  of  the  United  States,  and 
desires  that  they  may  continue  one  great  and  independent  nation  forever.  I 
know  still  further,  that  the  principles  I  have  thus  stated  will  commend  them¬ 
selves  to  his  own  great  wisdom.  To  invite  or  to  accept  mediation  would  be 
incompatible  with  these  principles. 

When  all  this  has  been  said,  you  will  then  further  say  to  Mr.  Thouvenel, 
or  to  the  Emperor,  that  if  any  mediation  were  at  all  admissible  it  would  be 
his  own  that  we  should  seek  or  accept. 

You  may  say,  at  the  same  time,  that  this  government  has  no  apprehension 
whatever  of  its  being  unable  to  conduct  our  domestic  affairs  through  this 
crisis  to  a  safe  conclusion  ;  that  consummation  is  even  not  far  distant,  if 


206 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


foreign  powers  shall  practice  towards  us  the  same  forbearance  from  inter¬ 
vention  which  we  have  Habitually  practiced  towards  them  in  emergencies 
similar  to  our  own  ;  that  intervention  by  them  would  only  protract  and 
aggravate  the  civil  war  in  which  we  are  unhappily  engaged  ;  that  civil 
war  is  a  scourge  to  which  we  are  more  sensitive  than  any  other  people,  but 
that  the  preservation  of  national  unity,  which  is  national  existence,  recon¬ 
ciles  us  to  every  form  of  difficulty  and  to  the  longest  possible  endurance  of 
the  trial  in  which  we  are  engaged. 

Other  subjects  mentioned  in  your  despatch  will  be  the  subject  of  a  special 
communication  after  we  shall  have  received  the  information  from  the  French 
government  which  Mr.  Thouvenel  told  Mr.  Sanford  that  he  should  send  with 
very  little  delay.  It  seems  desirable  to  have  the  positions  of  the  French 
government  in  regard  to  our  affairs,  as  stated  by  itself,  before  we  answer 
to  inquiries  bearing  on  the  subjects  to  be  discussed,  which  were  referred 
to  us  through  the  conversation  which  took  place  at  the  time  of  your 
reception. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

W  illiam  L.  Daytox,  Esq.,  ffic.,  &c.  &c.,  Paris. 

P.  S. — I  enclose  a  copy  of  a  note  of  this  date  to  Lord  Lyons,  which  will 
dispel  any  uncertainty  which  the  French  government  may  entertain  in  regard 
to  our  recognition  of  a  rule  of  international  law  which  they  may  deem  im¬ 
portant. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  10.]  Paris,  June  12,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatch  (No.  10)  was  duly  received  on  the  9th  instant,  and,  by 
the  same  steamer,  certain  enclosures  which  were  delivered  by  me  to  Mr. 
Sanford  as  directed. 

Your  despatch  (which  is  of  great  interest)  was  likewise  handed  by  me  to 
Mr.  Sanford,  to  be  read  and  copied  if  desired,  with  strict  injunctions  as  to 
the  necessary  care  to  prevent  all  premature  exposure  of  its  contents.  *  * 

You  will  observe  in  the  first  column  of  “  Le  Moniteur  Universel”  (a  copy  of 
which  is  herewith  sent)  that  his  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  the  French,  has 
published  a  formal  declaration,  setting  out  the  principles  by  which  this  gov¬ 
ernment  will  be  controlled  in  respect  to  vessels  of  war  or  privateers  of  the 
United  States  and  of  those  who  assume  to  have  formed  (“  pretendent  formei”) 
a  separate  confederation.  These  principles  are  substantially  the  same  as  those 
set  forth  in  my  despatch  No.  5,  and,  if  they  are  thoroughly  carried  out  by 
this  government,  I  do  not  see  that  much  danger  can  arise  to  our  commerce 
from  French  subjects,  or  any  facilities  afforded  by  French  ports.  Indeed,  if 
the  insurrectionists  of  the  south  are  recognized  as  belligerents,  I  do  not  see 
how  we  can  justly  ask  or  expect  the  French  government  to  go  further 
against  the  pretended  confederacy  than  it  has  gone  in  this  declaration.  That 
part  of  the  declaration  which  puts  the  vessels  of  the  United  States  in  the 
same  category  as  the  vessels  of  the  Confederate  States,  may,  I  think,  be 
justly  complained  of ;  but  this  grows  almost  necessarily  out  of  the  recog¬ 
nition  of  those  States  as  belligerents.  France  has  placed  upon  their  rights 
as  belligerents  (as  it  seems  to  me)  the  utmost  limitation  that  she  could  put 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


207 


upon  them,  consistently  with  the  recognition  of  such  rights  at  all.  She  has 
done  this,  moreover,  without  offensive  promulgation  of  sympathy  with  the 
southern  rebels  either  upon  the  part  of  the  government  or  its  statesmen,  but 
with  expressions  of  kindness  and  respect  for  us  throughout. 

I  have  not  yet  received  from  Mr.  Thouvenel  an  answer  to  my  written 
proposition  to  open  negotiations  for  the  accession  of  the  United  States  to 
the  treaty  of  Paris  of  1856.  A  copy  of  that  written  proposition,  marked  A, 
is  hereunto  attached. 

The  European  press,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  take  it  for  granted  that 
the  accession  of  the  United  States  to  that  treaty  would  not  at  all  alter  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  the  several  powers  to  the  so-called  southern  confederacy.  A  treaty 
cannot  of  itself  alter  the  law  of  nations,  although  it  may  restrict  the  rights 
of  those  States  which  become  parties  to  it.  The  treaty  of  Paris  certainly 
did  not  prevent  the  United  States,  while  no  party  to  it,  from  issuing  letters 
of  marque,  nor  would  the  accession  of  the  United  States  to  such  treaty  pre¬ 
vent  the  confederates  of  the  south  from  doing  the  same  thing  if  they  are 
recognized  by  other  nations  as  a  belligerent  power.  The  whole  difficulty, 
every  subsequent  right  which  has  been  conceded  to  the  confederates,  grows 
out  of  that  recognition. 

It  is  doubtful,  perhaps,  whether  the  other  powers  will,  under  the  circum¬ 
stances,  negotiate  for  the  accession  of  the  United  States  at  this  time  to  the 
treaty  in  question  ;  but  should  they  do  so,  it  will  be  with  the  understand¬ 
ing,  1  take  it,  that  it  imposes  no  new  duties  upon  them  growing  out  of  our 
domestic  controversy.  1  beg  pardon,  however,  for  these  suggestions.  They 
may,  perhaps,  be  considered  a  little  beyond  the  line  of  my  official  duties. 

;fc  *  :f;  5}c 


With  high  consideration,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c. 


A. 


Paris,  May  31,  1861. 

Sir:  In  conformity  with  the  verbal  promise  I  gave  at  our  last  conference, 
1  now  have  the  honor  to  propose  to  your  excellency  an  accession,  on  the  part 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  to  “  the  declaration  concerning  maritime 
law,’’  adopted  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  France,  Great  Britain,  Austria, 
Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  and  Turkey,  at  Paris,  on  the  16th  of  April,  1856, 
with  the  addition  to  the  first  clause,  which  declares  “privateering  is  and 
remains  abolished,”  of  the  following  words:  “And  the  private  property  of 
the  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  belligerent  on  the  high  seas  shall  be  exempted 
from  seizure  by  public  armed  vessels  of  the  other  belligerent,  unless  it  be 
contraband.” 

Thus  amended  I  will  immediately  sign  a  convention  on  the  part  of  the 
United  States,  acceding  to  the  declaration,  which  will,  I  doubt  not,  be 
promptly  ratified  and  confirmed  by  my  government. 

With  much  respect,  1  have  the  honor  to  be  your  very  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  Monsieur  Thouvenel, 

Minister  of  Foreiyn  Affairs. 


208 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  19.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  It,  1861. 

Sir:  Every  instruction  which  this  government  has  given  to  its  repre¬ 
sentatives  abroad,  since  the  recent  change  of  administration  took  place,  has 
expressed  our  profound  anxiety  lest  the  disloyal  citizens  who  are  engaged 
in  an  attempt  to  overthrow  the  Union  should  obtain  aid  and  assistance 
from  foreign  nations,  either  in  the  form  of  a  recognition  of  their  pretended 
sovereignty,  or  in  some  other  and  more  qualified  or  guarded  manner.  Every 
instruction  has  expressed  our  full  belief  that,  without  such  aid  or  assistance, 
the  insurrection  would  speedil}7  come  to  an  end,  while  any  advantage  that 
it  could  derive  from  such  aid  or  assistance  could  serve  no  other  purpose 
than  to  protract  the  existing  struggle  and  aggravate  the  evils  it  is  inflicting 
on  our  own  country  and  on  foreign  and  friendly  nations.  Every  instruction 
bears  evidence  of  an  earnest  solicitude  to  avoid  even  an  appearance  of 
meuace  or  of  want  of  comity  towards  foreign  powers;  but  at  the  same 
time  it  has  emphatically  announced,  as  is  now  seen  to  have  been  necessary, 
our  purpose  not  to  allow  any  one  of  them  to  expect  to  remain  in  friendship 
with  us  if  it  should,  with  whatever  motive,  practically  render  such  aid  or 
assistance  to  the  insurgents.  We  have  intended  not  to  leave  it  doubtful 
that  a  concession  of  sovereignty  to  the  insurgents,  though  it  should  be  indi¬ 
rect  or  unofficial,  or  though  it  should  be  qualified  so  as  to  concede  only 
belligerent  or  other  partial  rights,  would  be  regarded  as  inconsistent  with 
the  relations  due  to  us  by  friendly  nations.  Nor  has  it  been  left  at  all 
uncertain  that  we  shall,  in  every  event,  insist  that  these  United  States  must 
be  considered  and  dealt  with  now,  as  heretofore,  by  such  nations  as  exclu¬ 
sively  sovereign  for  all  purposes  whatsoever  within  the  territories  over 
which  the  Constitution  has  been  extended.  On  the  other  hand  we  have  not, 
at  any  time,  been  unmindful  of  the  peculiar  circumstances  which  might 
excite  apprehensions  on  the  part  of  commercial  nations  for  the  safety  of 
their  subjects  and  their  property  in  the  conflicts  which  might  occur  upon 
sea  as  well  as  on  land  between  the  forces  of  the  United  States  and  those  of 
the  insurgents. 

The  United  States  have  never  disclaimed  the  employment  of  letters  of 
marque  as  a  means  of  maritime  war.  The  insurgents  early  announced  their 
intention  to  commission  privateers.  We  knew  that  friendly  nations  would 
be  anxious  for  guarantees  of  safety  from  injury  by  that  form  of  depredation 
upon  the  national  commerce.  We  knew  also  that  such  nations  would  desire 
to  be  informed  whether  their  flags  should  be  regarded  as  protecting  goods, 
not  contraband  of  war,  of  disloyal  citizens,  found  under  them,  and  whether 
the  goods,  not  contraband,  of  subjects  of  such  nations  would  be  safe  from 
confiscation  when  found  in  vessels  of  disloyal  citizens  of  the  United  States. 
This  administration,  free  from  some  of  the  complications  of  those  which  had 
preceded  it,  promptly  took  up  the  negotiations  relating  to  the  declaration 
of  the  congress  of  Paris,  just  at  the  point  where  they  had  been  suspended 
by  President  Buchanan.  We  found  it  just  and  humane  in  itself  so  far  as 
it  goes,  and  that  it  had  only  failed  to  be  accepted  by  the  United  States 
because  foreign  nations  had  refused  to  accept  an  additional  principle  pro¬ 
posed  by  this  government,  yet  more  just  and  humane  than  any  which  it  does 
contain,  namely,  that  the  property  of  private  citizens,  not  contraband, 
should  be  exempted  from  confiscation  in  maritime  war.  While  still  willing 
and  desirous  to  have  that  further  principle  incorporated  in  the  law  of  nations, 
we  nevertheless  instructed  you,  and  all  our  representatives  in  foreign  coun¬ 
tries,  to  waive  it,  if  necessary,  and  to  stipulate,  subject  to  the  concurrence 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


209 


of  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of  the 
congress  of  Paris  as  a  whole  and  unmodified.  This  was  done  so  early  as 
the  25th  day  of  April  last,  long  before  the  date  of  the  instructions  which 
Mr.  Mercier  proposed  to  submit  to  us.  We  have  ever  since  that  time  been 
waiting  for  the  responses  of  foreign  powers  to  this  high  and  liberal  demon¬ 
stration  on  our  part.  We  have,  however,  received  no  decisive  answers  on 
the  subject  from  those  powers. 

It  was  under  these  circumstances  that  on  the  fifteenth  day  of  June  in¬ 
stant,  the  minister  from  France  and  the  minister  from  Great  Britain,  having 
previously  requested  an  interview,  were  received  by  me.  Each  of  them 
announced  that  he  was  charged  by  his  government  to  read  a  despatch  to  me 
and  to  give  me  a  copy  if  I  should  desire  it. 

I  answered  that,  owing  to  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  times,  I  could 
not  consent  to  an  official  reading  or  delivery  of  these  papers  without  first 
knowing  their  characters  and  objects.  They  confidentially  and  with  entire 
frankness  put  the  despatches  into  my  hands  for  an  informal  preliminary  ex¬ 
amination.  Having  thus  become  possessed  of  their  characters,  I  replied  to 
those  ministers  that  I  could  not  allow  them  to  be  officially  communicated  to 
this  government.  The}'  will  doubtless  mention  this  answer  to  their  respective 
states. 

I  give  you  now  the  reasons  of  this  government  for  pursuing  this  course 
in  regard  to  the  despatch  from  France,  that  you  may  communicate  them  to 
the  French  government,  if  you  shall  find  it  necessary  or  expedient. 

Some  time  ago  we  learned  through  our  legation  at  St.  Petersburg  that  an 
understanding  had  been  effected  between  the  governments  of  Great  Britain 
and  France  that  they  should  take  one  and  the  same  course  on  the  subject  of 
the  political  disturbances  in  this  country,  including  the  possible  recognition 
of  the  insurgents.  At  a  later  period  this  understanding  was  distinctly 
avowed  by  Mr.  Tbouvenel  to  Mr.  Sanford,  who  had  been  informally  intro¬ 
duced  by  me  to  the  French  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  and  by  Lord  John 
Russell  to  Mr.  Dallas,  our  late  minister  in  London.  The  avowal  in  each 
case  preceded  the  arrival  of  our  newly  appointed  ministers  in  Europe,  with 
their  instructions  for  the  discharge  of  their  respective  missions. 

On  receiving  their  avowals  I  immediately  instructed  yourself  and  Mr. 
Adams  “that  although  we  might  have  expected  a  different  course  on  the 
part  of  these  two  great  powers,  yet,  as  the  fact  that  an  understanding 
existed  between  them  did  not  certainly  imply  an  unfriendly  spirit,  we  should 
not  complain  of  it,  but  that  it  must  be  understood  by  the  French  and  British 
governments  that  we  shall  deal  hereafter,  as  heretofore,  in  this  case,  as  in 
all  others,  with  each  power  separately,  and  that  the  agreement  for  concerted 
action  between  them  would  not  at  all.  influence  the  course  we  should  pursue.” 
The  concert  thus  avowed  has  been  carried  out.  The  ministers  came  to  me 
together;  the  instructions  they  proposed  to  me  differ  in  form,  but  are  counter¬ 
parts  in  effect. 

Adhering  to  our  previous  decision,  which  before  this  time  has  doubtless 
been  made  known  to  the  government  of  France,  we  do  not  make  this  con¬ 
cert,  under  the  circumstances,  a  reason  for  declining  to  hear  the  instruction 
with  which  Mr.  Mercier  is  charged. 

That  paper  does  not  expressly  deny  the  sovereignty  of  the  United  States 
of  America,  but  it  does  assume,  inconsistently  with  that  sovereignty,  that 
the  United  States  are  not  altogether  and  for  all  purposes  one  sovereign 
power,  but  that  this  nation  consists  of  two  parties,  of  which  this  govern¬ 
ment  is  one.  France  proposes  to  take  cognizance  of  both  parties  as  bellige- 
ents,  and  for  some  purposes  to  hold  communication  with  each.  The 

14 


210 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


instruction  would  advise  us  indeed  that  we  must  not  be  surprised  if  France 
shall  address  herself  to  a  government  which  she  says  is  to  be  installed  at 
Montgomery,  for  certain  explanations.  This  intimation  is  conclusive  in 
determining  this  government  not  to  allow  the  instruction  to  be  read  to  it. 

The  United  States  rightly  jealous,  as  we  think,  of  their  sovereignty, 
cannot  suffer  themselves  to  debate  any  abridgement  of  that  sovereignty 
with  France  or  with  any  other  nation.  Much  less  can  it  consent  that  France 
shall  announce  to  it  a  conclusion  of  her  own  against  that  sovereignty,  which 
conclusion  France  has  adopted  without  any  previous  conference  with  the 
United  States  on  the  subject.  This  government  insists  that  the  United 
States  are  one  whole  undivided  nation,  especially  so  far  as  foreign  nations 
are  concerned,  and  that  France  is,  by  the  law  of  nations  and  by  treaties,  not 
a  neutral  power  between  two  imaginary  parties  here,  but  a  friend  of  the 
United  States. 

In  the  spirit  of  this  understanding  of  the  case,  we  are  not  only  not  wishing  to 
seek  or  to  give  offence  to  France,  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  desire  to  preser  ve 
peace  and  friendship  with  that  great  power,  as  with  all  other  nations.  We  do 
not  feel  at  liberty  to  think,  and  do  not  think,  that  France  intended  any  want 
of  consideration  towards  the  United  States  in  directing  that  the  instruction 
in  question  should  be  read  to  us.  Outside  of  that  paper  we  have  abundant 
evidence  of  the  good  feeling  and  good  wishes  of  the  Emperor,  and  even  his 
anxious  solicitude  for  the  same  consummation  which  is  the  supreme  object 
of  our  own  desires  and  labors,  namely,  the  preservation  of  the  American 
Union  in  its  full  and  absolute  integrity. 

Dunbtless  the  proceeding  has  been  the  result  of  inadvertence.  We  feel 
ourselves  at  liberty  to  think  that  it  would  not  have  occurred  if  we  had  been 
so  fortunate  as  to  have  been  heard  through  you  in  the  consultations  of  the 
French  government.  We  think  we  can  easily  see  how  the  inadvertence  has 
occurred.  France  seems  to  have  mistaken  a  mere  casual  and  ephemeral  in¬ 
surrection  here,  such  as  is  incidental  in  the  experience  of  all  nations,  because 
all  nations  are  merely  human  societies,  such  as  have  sometimes  happened  in 
the  history  of  France  herself,  for  a  war  which  has  flagrantly  separated  this 
nation  into  two  co-existing  political  powers  which  are  contending  in  arms 
against  each  other  after  the  separation. 

It  is  erroneous,  so  far  as  foreign  nations  are  concerned,  to  suppose  that 
any  war  exists  in  the  United  States.  Certainly  there  cannot  be  two  bellig¬ 
erent  powers  where  there  is  no  war.  There  is  here,  as  there  has  always 
been,  one  political  power,  namely,  the  United  States  of  America,  competent 
to  make  war  and  peace,  and  conduct  commerce  and  alliances  with  all  foreign 
nations.  There  is  none  other,  either  in  fact,  or  recognized  by  foreign  nations. 
There  is,  indeed,  an  armed  sedition  seeking  to  overthrow  the  government, 
and  the  government  is  employing  military  and  naval  forces  to  repress  it. 
But  these  facts  do  not  constitute  a  war  presenting  two  belligerent  powers, 
and  modifying  the  national  character,  rights,  and  responsibilities,  or  the 
characters,  rights,  and  responsibilities  of  foreign  nations.  It  is  true  that 
insurrection  may  ripen  into  revolution,  and  that  revolution  thus  ripened  may 
extinguish  a  previously  existing  State,  or  divide  it  into  one  or  more  inde¬ 
pendent  States,  and  that  if  such  States  continue  their  strife  after  such  division, 
then  there  exists  a  state  of  war  affecting  the  characters,  rights,  and  duties 
of  all  parties  concerned.  But  this  only  happens  when  the  revolution  has 
run  its  successful  course. 

The  French  government  says,  in  the  instruction  which  has  been  tendered 
to  us,  that  certain  facts  which  it  assumes  confer  upon  the  insurgents  of  this 
country,  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  powers,  all  the  appearances  of  a  government 
de  facto ,  wherefore,  whatever  may  be  its  regrets,  the  French  government 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


211 


must  consider  the  two  contending  parties  as  employing  the  forces  at  their 
disposal  in  conformity  with  the  laws  of  war. 

This  statement  assumes  not  only  that  the  law  of  nations  entitles  any 
insurrectionary  faction,  when  it  establishes  a  de  facto  government,  to  be 
treated  as  a  belligerent,  but  also  that  the  fact  of  the  attainment  of  this  status 
is  to  be  determined  by  the  appearance  of  it  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations.  If 
we  should  concede  botli  of  these  positions,  we  should  still  insist  that  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  a  de  facto  government,  entitled  to  belligerent  rights,  is  not  estab¬ 
lished  in  the  present  case.  We  have  already  heard  from  most  of  the  foreign 
nations.  There  are  only  two  which  seem  so  to  construe  appearances,  and 
France  is  one  of  them.  Are  the  judgments  of  these  two  to  outweigh  those 
of  all  other  nations?  Doubtless  each  nation  may  judge  and  act  for  itself, 
but  it  certainly  cannot  expect  the  United  States  to  accept  its  decision  upon 
a  question  vital  to  their  national  existence.  The  United  States  will  not 
refine  upon  the  question  when  and  how  new  nations  are  born  out  of  existing 
nations.  They  are  well  aware  that  the  rights  of  the  States  involve  their 
duties  and  their  destinies,  and  they  hold  those  rights  to  be  absolute  as 
against  all  foreign  nations.  These  rights  do  not  at  all  depend  on  the  appear¬ 
ances  which  their  condition  may  assume  in  the  eyes  of  foreign  nations, 
whether  strangers,  neutrals,  friends,  or  even  allies.  The  United  States  will 
maintain  and  defend  their  sovereignty  throughout  the  bounds  of  the  republic, 
and  they  deem  all  other  nations  bound  to  respect  that  sovereignty  until,  if 
ever,  Providence  shall  consent  that  it  shall  be  successfully  overthrown.  Any 
system  of  public  law  or  national  morality  that  conflicts  with  this  would 
resolve  society,  first  in  this  hemisphere  and  then  in  the  other,  into  anarchy 
and  chaos. 

This  government  is  sensible  of  the  importance  of  the  step  it  takes  in 
declining  to  hear  the  communication  the  tender  of  which  has  drawn  out 
these  explanations.  It  believes,  however,  that  it  need  not  disturb  the  good 
relations  which  have  so  long  and  so  happily  subsisted  between  the  United 
States  and  France. 

The  paper,  as  understood,  while  implying  a  disposition  on  the  part  of 
France  to  accord  belligerent  rights  to  the  insurgents,  does  not  name,  specify, 
or  even  indicate  one  such  belligerent  right.  On  the  other  hand,  the  rights 
which  it  asserts  that  France  expects,  as  a  neutral,  from  the  United  States, 
as  a  belligerent,  are  even  less  than  this  government,  on  the  25th  of  April, 
instructed  you  to  concede  and  guaranty  to  her  by  treaty,  as  a  friend.  On 
that  day  we  offered  to  her  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  which 
contains  four  propositions,  namely:  1st.  That  privateering  shall  be  abolished. 
2d.  That  a  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods  not  contraband  of  war.  3d.  That 
goods  of  a  neutral,  not  contraband,  shall  not  be  confiscated  though  found  in 
an  enemy’s  vessel.  4th.  That  blockades,  in  order  to  be  lawful,  must  be 
maintained  by  competent  force.  We  have  always,  when  at  war,  conceded 
the  three  last  of  these  rights  to  neutrals,  a  fortiori ,  we  could  not  when  at 
peace  deny  them  to  friendly  nations.  The  first-named  concession  was  pro¬ 
posed  on  the  grounds  already  mentioned.  We  are  still  ready  to  guarantee 
these  rights,  by  convention  with  France,  whenever  she  shall  authorize  either 
you  or  her  minister  here  to  enter  into  convention.  There  is  no  reservation 
or  difficulty  about  their  application  in  the  present  case.  We  hold  all  the 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  loyal  or  disloyal,  alike  included  by  the  law  of 
nations  and  treaties;  and  we  hold  ourselves  bound  by  the  same  obligations 
to  see,  so  far  as  may  be  in  our  power,  that  all  our  citizens,  whether  main¬ 
taining  this  government  or  engaged  in  overthrowing  it,  respect  those  rights 
in  favor  of  France  and  of  every  other  friendly  nation.  In  any  case,  not  only 
shall  we  allow  no  privateer  or  national  vessel  to  violate  the  rights  of  friendly 
nations  as  I  have  thus  described  them,  but  we  shall  also  employ  all  our  naval 


212 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


force  to  prevent  the  insurgents  from  violating  them  just  as  much  as  we  do 
to  prevent  them  from  violating  the  laws  of  our  own  country. 

What,  then,  does  France  claim  of  us  that  we  do  not  accord  to  her  ? 
Nothing.  What  do  we  refuse  to  France  by  declining  to  receive  the  com¬ 
munication  sent  to  us  through  the  hands  of  Mr.  Mercier?  Nothing  but  the 
privilege  of  telling  us  that  we  are  at  war,  when  we  maintain  we  are  at 
peace,  and  that  she  is  a  neutral,  when  we  prefer  to  recognize  her  as  a  friend. 

Of  course,  it  is  understood  that  on  this  occasion  we  reserve,  as  on  all 
others,  our  right  to  suppress  the  insurrection  by  naval  as  well  as  by  mili¬ 
tary  power,  and  for  that  purpose  to  close  such  of  our  ports  as  have  fallen  or 
may  fall  into  the  hands  of  the  insurgents,  either  directly  or  in  the  more 
lenient  and  equitable  form  of  a  blockade,  which  for  the  present  we  have 
adopted.  It  is  thus  seen  that  there  is  no  practical  subject  of  difference 
between  the  two  governments.  The  United  States  will  hope  that  France 
will  not  think  it  necessary  to  adhere  to  and  practice  upon  the  speculation 
concerning  the  condition  of  our  internal  affairs  which  she  has  proposed  to 
communicate  to  us.  But  however  this  may  be,  the  United  States  will  not 
anticipate  an}T  occasion  for  a  change  of  the  relations  which,  with  scarcely 
any  interruption,  have  existed  between  the  two  nations  for  three-quarters  of 
a  century,  and  have  been  very  instrumental  in  promoting,  not  merely  the 
prosperity  and  greatness  of  each  State,  but  the  cause  of  civil  and  religious 
liberty  and  free  institutions  throughout  the  world. 

This  government  understands  equally  the  interest  of  friendly  nations  and 
its  own  in  the  present  emergency.  If  they  shall  not  interfere,  the  attempt 
at  revolution  here  will  cease  without  inflicting  serious  evils  upon  foreign 
nations.  All  that  they  can  do  by  any  interference,  with  a  view  to  modify 
our  action,  will  only  serve  to  prolong  the  present  unpleasant  condition  of 
things,  and  possibly  to  produce  results  that  would  be  as  universally 
calamitous  as  they  would  be  irretrievable. 

The  case,  as  it  now  stands,  is  the  simple,  ordinary  one  that  has  happened 
at  all  times  and  in  all  countries.  A  discontented  domestic  faction  seeks  for¬ 
eign  intervention  to  overthrow  the  Constitution  and  the  liberties  of  its  own 
country.  Such  intervention,  if  yielded,  is  ultimately  disastrous  to  the  cause 
it  is  designed  to  aid.  Every  uncorrupted  nation,  in  its  deliberate  moments, 
prefers  its  own  integrity,  even  with  unbearable  evils,  to  division  through  the 
power  or  influence  of  any  foreign  State.  This  is  so  in  France.  It  is  not 
less  so  in  this  country.  Down  deep  in  the  heart  of  the  American  people — 
deeper  than  the  love  of  trade,  or  of  freedom — deeper  than  the  attachment 
to  any  local  or  sectional  interest,  or  partizan  pride  or  individual  ambition — 
deeper  than  any  other  sentiment — is  that  one  out  of  which  the  Constitution 
of  this  Union  arose,  namely,  American  independence — independence  of  all 
foreign  control,  alliance,  or  influence.  Next  above  it  lies  the  conviction  that 
neither  peace,  nor  safety,  nor  public  liberty,  nor  prosperity,  nor  greatness, 
nor  empire,  can  be  attained  here  with  the  sacrifice  of  the  unity  of  the  people 
of  North  America.  Those  who,  in  a  frenzy  of  passion,  are  building  expecta¬ 
tions  on  other  principles  do  not  know  what  they  are  doing.  Whenever  one 
part  of  this  Union  shall  be  found  assuming  bonds  of  dependence  or  of  frater¬ 
nity  towards  any  foreign  people,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  sympathies  of  their 
native  land,  then,  even  if  not  before,  that  spirit  will  be  reawakened  which 
brought  the  States  of  this  republic  into  existence,  and  which  will  preserve 
them  united  until  the  common  destiny  which  it  opened  to  them  shall  be  fully 
and  completely  realized. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.}  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


213 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 


[Extracts.] 


No.  22.] 

Sir: 

*  * 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  22,  1861. 

<1/  C/  A/ 

^  ^  ^  w  m 


Your  answer  to  oilers  of  service  and  of  materiel  of  war  seems  to  have  been 
judicious.  If  the  War  Department  should  find  need  for  the  latter,  it  will 
commission  proper  agents.  As  for  the  former,  the  offers  for  military  service, 
and  by  our  own  citizens,  surpass  equally  our  calls  and  our  needs.  Colonel 
Fremont’s  purchases  are  thankfully  approved,  and  the  drafts  of  yourself  and 
Mr.  Adams,  mentioned  by  you,  will  be  accepted.  The  President  expresses 
great  satisfaction  with  the  promptness  and  decision  manifested  by  you  in 
the  matter. 

We  wish  to  act  singly  and  in  good  faith  with  the  French  government.  We 
understand,  and  shall  continue  to  understand,  that  France  does  not  concede 
belligerent  rights  to  the  insurgents  in  contravention  of  our  sovereignty. 
We  shall  insist  that  she  does  nothing  adverse  to  our  position,  whatever  may 
be  said  to  the  contrary. 

She  has  proposed  to  tell  us  that  she  thinks  the  confederate  States  are  en¬ 
titled  to  belligerent  rights.  AYe  have  declined  to  hear  that.  We  have  not 
heard  it.  A\re  shall  continue  to  regard  France  as  respecting  our  government, 
throughout  the  whole  couutry,  until  she  practically  acts  in  violation  of  her 
friendly  obligations  to  us,  as  we  understand  them.  When  she  does  that,  it  will 
be  time  enough  to  inquire  whether,  if  we  accede  to  the  treaty  of  Paris,  she 
could,  after  that,  allow  pirates  upon  our  commerce  shelter  in  her  ports; 
and  what  our  remedy  then  should  be.  We  have  no  fear  on  this  head. 

We  are  dealing  now  as  a  nation  at  peace  with  France  as  a  friend.  AAre 
have  told  her  that  we  shall  not  consent  to  her  change  of  this  relation. 

She  knows,  distinctly,  if  she  accepts  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of 
the  congress  of  Paris,  the  ground  on  which  it  is  given  by  us. 

While  saying  this,  however,  we  also  confess  that  our  solicitude  on  the 
subject  is  not  so  intense  now,  since  the  responsibility  for  the  next  step 
remains  with  France  and  not  with  us. 

Still  we  wish  you  to  act  directly  and  frankly,  being  always  ready  to  per¬ 
form  all  we  have  offered. 

This  despatch  is  strictly  confidential. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts .] 

Paris,  Jane  22,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  to  you  a  copy  of  the  reply  of  Mr.  Thou- 
venel  to  my  proposition,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  to  open  negotia¬ 
tions  for  its  accession  to  the  treaty  of  Paris  of  1856,  according  to  the  terms 
therein  stated. 

In  our  first  conversation  upon  this  subject,  I  understood  from  Mr.  Thou- 


214 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


vend  that  on  a  written  proposition  from  me  for  negotiation  he  would  ad- 
diess  the  other  powers  (parties  to  the  treaty)  upon  the  subject.  That  a  note 
from  me  would  afford  him  a  starting  point  for  communicating  with  such 
powers.  Upon  further  reflection,  or  upon  conference  with  his  associates  in 
the  government,  he  now  writes  that  it  will  be  necessary  that  I  address 
myself  jointly  (if  I  understood  him  rightly)  to  all  the  powers  associated  in 
that  treaty,  before  my  proposition  can  be  considered. 

Our  condition  as  respects  privateering  and  the  belligerent  rights  conceded 
to  the  south  has  been  so  changed  by  the  action  of  Great  Britain,  France 
and  Spain,  subsequent  to  the  first  declaration  of  Lord  John  Russelll,  (stating 
that  such  belligerent  rights  would  be  conceded,)  that  I  know  not  what  may 
be  the  views  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  at  this  time  as  respects 
an  accession  to  the  treaty  of  1856,  pure  and  simple.  But  as  I  have  learned 
that  nothing  substantially  has  been  done  in  that  direction  at  other  points, 
and  I  do  not  see  that  the  interests  of  the  country  will  be  jeoparded  by  a 
little  del a^’,  I  shall  await  further  instructions  upon  this  subject.  My  first 
despatch  referring  to  this  matter  was  dated  22d  of  May  last,  and  I  doubt 
not  I  shall  now  receive  an  answer  at  an  early  da}\  If  the  government  of 
the  United  States  shall,  in  view  of  the  circumstances,  direct  me  to  make  the 
proposition  to  the  French  government  to  accede  to  the  Paris  treaty,  pure 
and  simple,  I  will,  acting  under  such  express  direction,  lose  no  time  in 
making  the  proposition.  ****** 

With  high  consideration,  I  am  yours,  very  truly, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  14.]  Paris,  June  28,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatches  (Nos.  13  and  14)  are  duly  received.  The  copy  of 
your  letter  to  Lord  Lyons,  recognizing  the  rights  of  neutrals  to  property 
taken  in  vessels  of  the  insurgents,  will  be  communicated  on  the  first  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  Mr.  Thouvenel.  This  will  relieve  any  doubts  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment  may  have  had  heretofore  on  this  subject. 

*  *  *  T]ie  Emperor  and  most  of  the  ministers  being  in  the  country, 

and  the  legislative  chambers  about  to  adjourn,  there  is  little  probability  of 
anything  of  interest  occurring  here  at  an  early  day,  unless  something  shall 
occur  in  America  which  shall  give  rise  to  it. 

With  much  respect,  I  am  yours,  very  truly, 

Hon.  Wm.  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


WM.  L.  DAYTON. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


215 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 
[Extracts .] 


No.  26.] 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  6,  1861. 


Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  11,  dated  on  the 


dav  of  June  ultimo,  has 

V  / 


been  received. 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


The  President  is  highly  gratified  by  the  disposition  which  Mr.  Thouvenel 
has  made  of  the  application  of  the  agents  of  the  insurrectionists  for  recogni¬ 
tion  of  their  pretended  revolution.  What  you  have  reported  to  us  in  this 
respect  is  happily  confirmed  in  even  more  emphatic  language  by  the  com¬ 
munication  which  Mr.  Mercier  has  made  to  us  to-day  under  instructions 
from  his  government. 

We  are  pleased  that  you  called  Mr.  ThouvenePs  attention  to  the  mis¬ 
chievous  paragraph  in  the  Moniteur,  because  it  has  drawn  out  renewed  and 
most  satisfactory  assurances  of  the  friendly  feelings  and  good  wishes  of  the 
government  of  Prance.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  but  just  to  ourselves  that 
you  shall  now  inform  Mr.  Thouvenel  that  it  is  our  settled  habit  never  to 
overhear  what  the  press,  or  the  ministers,  or  even  the  monarch  of  a  foreign 
country  with  which  we  are  in  amity,  says  concerning  us,  and  never  to  ask 
any  explanations  so  long  as  such  observations  are  not  directly  communicated 
by  the  government  itself  to  us,  and  it,  at  the  same  time,  discharges  all  its 
customary  functions  without  hostility  or  injury  to  us.  Our  reasons  for  this 
are  that  we  know,  first,  there  are  state  necessities  which  do  not  always  per¬ 
mit,  in  any  country,  the  practice  of  entire  frankness  concerning  foreign 
questions;  secondly,  that  unguarded  and  inconsiderate  expressions,  even  by 
persons  in  high  authority,  ought  not  to  disturb  established  and  harmonious 
relations  between  friendly  nations;  and,  thirdly,  that  we  know  that  the 
maintenance  of  our  rights  and  character  depend,  as  they  ought,  chiefly  on 
our  own  fidelity  to  ourselves,  and  very  little  on  the  favorable  opinion  of  even 
the  most  candid  and  liberal  nations.  Friendship  towards,  and  confidence  in, 
the  good  will  of  France  towards  us  are  settled  habits  of  mind  on  the  part 
of  the  American  people.  If  anything  is  hastily  written  or  spoken  on  either 
side  that  would  seem  to  indicate  a  different  sentiment,  it  is  wise  to  let  it 
pass  without  sensibility,  and  certainly  without  querulous  animadversion. 

Mr.  Burlingame  will,  before  this  time,  have  been  advised  of  his  appoint¬ 
ment  as  minister  to  China.  Ilis  delay  at  Paris  is  approved  in  consideration 
of  the  peculiar  circumstances  of  the  case. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.}  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 


Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  6,  1861. 


No.  21.] 


Sir:  Your  despatch  No  12  (dated  June  22)  has  been  received.  It 


216 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


affair  has  become  very  much  complicated,  by  reason  of  the  irregular 
and  extraordinary  proceeding  of  the  French  government  in  proposing 
to  take  notice  of  the  domestic  disturbance  which  has  occurred  in  this 
country.  I  do  not  know  that  even  now  I  can  clear  the  matter  up 
effectually  without  knowing  what  may  be  the  result  of  the  communication 
which,  in  my  despatch  No.  19,  I  instructed  you  to  make  to  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment.  I  will  try,  nevertheless,  to  do  so.  The  instructions  contained  in 
my  despatch  No.  4,  dated  24th  of  April  last,  required  you  to  tender  to  the 
French  government,  without  delay,  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of  the 
congress  of  Paris,  pure  and  simple. 

The  reason  why  we  wished  it  done  immediately  was,  that  we  supposed 
the  French  government  would  naturally  feel  a  deep  anxiety  about  the  safety 
of  their  commerce,  threatened  distinctly  with  privateering  by  the  insurgents, 
while  at  the  same  time,  as  this  government  had  heretofore  persistently  de¬ 
clined  to  relinquish  the  right  of  issuing  letters  of  marque,  it  would  be  appre¬ 
hended  by  France  that  we  too  should  take  up  that  form  of  maritime  warfare 
in  the  present  domestic  controversy.  We  apprehended  that  the  danger  of 
such  a  case  of  depredation  upon  commerce  equally  by  the  government  itself, 
and  by  its  enemies,  would  operate  as  a  provocation  to  France  and  other 
commercial  nations  to  recognize  the  insurrectionary  party  in  violation  of  our 
national  rights  and  sovereignty.  On  the  contrary,  we  did  not  desire  to 
depredate  on  friendly  commerce  ourselves,  and  we  thought  it  our  duty  to 
prevent  such  depredations  by  the  insurgents  by  executing'  our  own  laws, 
which  make  privateering  by  disloyal  citizens  piracy,  and  punish  its 
pursuit  as  such.  We  thought  it  wise,  just,  and  prudent  to  give,  unasked, 
guarantees  to  France  and  other  friendly  nations  for  the  security  of  their 
commerce  from  exposure  to  such  depredations  on  either  side,  at  the  very 
moment  when  we  were  delivering  to  them  our  protest  against  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  the  insurgents.  The  accession  to  the  declaration  of  Paris  would  be 
the  form  in  which  these  guarantees  could  be  given — that  for  obvious  reasons 
must  be  more  unobjectionable  to  France  and  to  other  commercial  nations 
than  any  other.  It  was  safe  on  our  part,  because  we  tendered  it,  of  course, 
as  the  act  of  this  federal  government,  to  be  obligatory  equally  upon  disloyal 
as  upon  loyal  citizens. 

The  instructions  waived  the  Marcy  amendment,  (which  proposed  to  exempt 
private  property  from  confiscation  in  maritime  war, )  and  required  you  to  pro¬ 
pose  our  accession  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  pure  and  simple. 
These  were  the  reasons  for  this  course,  namely:  First.  It  was  as  well  under¬ 
stood  by  this  government  then,  as  it  is  now  by  yourself,  that  an  article  of 
that  celebrated  declaration  prohibits  every  one  of  the  parties  to  it  from 
negotiating  upon  the  subject  of  neutral  rights  in  maritime  warfare  with 
any  nation  not  a  party  to  it,  except  for  the  adhesion  of  such  outstanding 
party  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  pure  and  simple.  An 
attempt  to  obtain  an  acceptance  of  Mr.  Marcy’s  amendment  would  require  a 
negotiation  not  merely  with  France  alone,  but  with  all  the  other  original 
parties  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  and  every  government  that  has  since 
acceded  to  the  declaration.  Nay,  more:  we  must  obtain  their  unanimous 
consent  to  the  amendment  before  being  able  to  commit  ourselves  or  to  en¬ 
gage  any  other  nation,  however  well  disposed,  to  commit  itself  to  us  on  the 
propositions  actually  contained  in  the  declaration.  On  the  other  hand,  each 
nation  which  is  a  party  to  the  declaration  of  Paris  is  at  liberty  to  stipulate 
singly  with  us  for  acceptance  of  that  declaration  for  the  government  of  our 
neutral  relations.  If,  therefore,  we  should  waive  the  Marcy  proposition,  or 
leave  it  for  ultimate  consideration,  we  could  establish  a  complete  agreement 
between  ourselves  and  France  on  a  subject  which,  if  it  should  be  left  open, 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


217 


might  produce  consequences  very  much  to  be  deprecated.  It  is  almost 
unnecessary  to  say  that  what  we  proposed  to  France  was  equally  and  simul¬ 
taneously  proposed  to  every  other  maritime  power.  In  this  way  we  ex¬ 
pected  to  remove  every  cause  that  any  foreign  power  could  have  for  the 
recognition  of  the  insurgents  as  a  belligerent  power. 

The  matter  stood  in  this  plain  and  intelligible  way  until  certain  declara¬ 
tions  or  expressions  of  the  French  government  induced  you  to  believe  that 
they  would  recognize  and  treat  the  insurgents  as  a  distinct  national  power 
for  belligerent  purposes.  It  was  not  altogether  unreasonable  that  you, 
being  at  Paris,  should  suppose  that  this  government  would  think  itself 
obliged  to  acquiesce  in  such  a  course  by  the  government  of  France.  So 
assuming,  you  thought  that  we  would  not  adhere  to  our  proposition  to 
accede  to  the  declaration,  pure  and  simple,  since  such  a  course  would,  as 
you  thought,  be  effective  to  bind  this  government  without  binding  the 
insurgents,  and  would  leave  France  at  liberty  to  hold  us  bound,  and  the 
insurgents  free  from  the  obligations  created  by  our  adhesion.  Moreover,  if 
we  correctly  understand  your  despatch  on  that  subject,  you  supposed  that 
you  might  propose  our  adhesion  to  the  treaty  of  Paris,  not  pure  and  simple, 
but  with  the  addition  of  the  Marcy  proposition  in  the  first  instance,  and 
might  afterwards,  in  case  of  its  being  declined  in  that  form,  withdraw  the 
addition,  and  then  propose  our  accession  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  pure 
and  simple 

While  you  were  acting  on  these  views  on  your  side  of  the  Atlantic,  we 
on  this  side,  not  less  confident  in  our  strength  than  in  our  rights,  as  you  are 
now  aware,  were  acting  on  another  view,  which  is  altogether  different, 
namely,  that  we  shall  not  acquiesce  in  any  declaration  of  the  government 
of  France  that  assumes  that  this  government  is  not  now,  as  it  always  has 
been,  exclusive  sovereign,  for  war  as  well  as  for  peace,  within  the  States 
and  Territories  of  the  federal  Union,  and  over  all  citizens,  the  disloyal  and 
loyal  all  alike.  We  treat  in  that  character,  which  is  our  legal  character,  or 
we  do  not  treat  at  all,  and  we  in  no  way  consent  to  compromise  that 
character  in  the  least  degree;  we  do  not  even  suffer  this  character  to 
become  the  subject  of  discussion.  Good  faith  and  honor,  as  well  as  the 
same  expediency  which  prompted  the  proffer  of  our  accession  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  Paris,  pure  and  simple,  in  the  first  instance,  now  require  us  to  adhere 
to  that  proposition  and  abide  by  it;  and  we  do  adhere  to  it,  not,  however, 
as  a  divided,  but  as  an  undivided  nation.  The  proposition  is  tendered  to 
France  not  as  a  neutral  but  as  a  friend,  and  the  agreement  is  to  be  obliga¬ 
tor}7  upon  the  United  States  and  France  and  all  their  legal  dependencies 
just  alike. 


The  case  was  peculiar,  and  in  the  aspect  in  which  it  presented  itself 
to  you  portentous.  We  were  content  that  you  might  risk  the  experi¬ 
ment,  so,  however,  that  you  should  not  bring  any  responsibility  for 
delay  upon  this  government.  But  you  now  see  that  by  incorporating 
the  Marcy  amendment  in  your  proposition,  you  have  encountered  the  very 
difficulty  which  was  at  first  foreseen  by  us.  The  following  nations  are 
parties  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  namely  :  Baden,  Bavaria,  Belgium, 
Bremen,  Brazils,  Duchy  of  Brunswick,  Chili,  the  Argentine  Confedera¬ 
tion,  the  Germanic  Confederation,  Denmark,  the  two  Sicilies,  the  Re¬ 
public  of  the  Equator,  the  Roman  States,  Greece,  Guatemala,  llayti,  Ham¬ 
burgh,  Hanover,  the  two  Hesses,  Lubeck,  Mecklenburgh  Strelitz,  Mecklen- 
burgh  Schwerin,  Nassau,  Oldenburgh,  Parma,  Holland,  Peru,  Portugal, 
Saxony,  Saxe  Altenburgh,  Saxe  Coburg  Gotha,  Saxe  Meiningen,  Saxe 
Weimar,  Sweden,  Switzerland,  Tuscany,  Wurtemburg,  Anhault  Dessau, 
Modena,  New  Granada,  and  Uruguay. 


218 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  great  exigency  in  our  affairs  will  have  passed  away — for  preserva¬ 
tion  or  destruction  of  the  American  Union — before  we  could  bring  all  these 
nations  to  unanimity  on  the  subject,  as  you  have  submitted  it  to  Mr. 
Thouvenel.  It  is  a  time  not  for  propagandism,  but  for  energetic  acting  to 
arrest  the  worst  of  all  national  calamities.  We  therefore  expect  you  now  to 
renew  the  proposition  in  the  form  originally  prescribed.  But  in  doing  this 
you  will  neither  unnecessarily  raise  a  question  about  the  character  in  which 
this  government  acts,  (being  exclusive  sovereign,)  nor,  on  the  other  hand, 
in  any  way  compromise  that  character  in  any  degree.  Whenever  such  a 
question  occurs  to  hinder  you,  let  it  come  up  from  the  other  party  in  the 
negotiation.  It  will  be  time  then  to  stop  and  wait  for  such  further  in¬ 
structions  as  the  new  exigency  may  require. 

One  word  more.  You  will,  in  any  case,  avow  our  preference  for  the 
proposition  with  the  Marcy  amendment  incorporated,  and  will  assure  the 
government  of  France  that  whenever  there  shall  be  any  hope  for  the 
adoption  of  that  beneficent  feature  by  the  necessary  parties,  as  a  principle 
of  the  law  of  nations,  we  shall  be  ready  not  only  to  agree  to  it,  but  even  to 
propose  it,  and  to  lead  in  the  necessary  negotiations. 

This  paper  is,  in  one  view,  a  conversation  merely  between  yourself  and 
us.  It  is  not  to  be  made  public.  On  the  other  hand,  we  confide  in  your 
discretion  to  make  such  explanations  as  will  relieve  yourself  of  embarrass¬ 
ments,  and  this  government  of  any  suspicion  of  inconsistency  or  indirection 
in  its  intercourse  with  the  enlightened  and  friendly  government  of  France. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  15.]  Paris,  July  5,  1861. 

gIK.  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

Since  writing  the  above  I  have  received  your  despatches,  Nos.  12,  19, 
and  20  I  infer,  from  the  contents  of  No.  19,  that  Mr.  Mercier  is  aware  of 
your  original  instructions  to  me  on  the  subject  of  an  accession  to  the  treaty 
of  Paris  of  1856,  and  that  you  hold  yourself  open  to  negotiate  with  him 
there  on  that  subject.  As  Mr.  Adams  has  referred  this  question  back  to  be 
treated  of  at  Washington,  and  it  is  evident,  I  think,  that  Great  Britain  and 
France  will  act  upon  advisement  at  least  with  each  other,  it  seems  to 
me  that  it  will  be  more  convenient,  in  every  respect,  that  you  should  take 
charge  of  the  whole  question  at  Washington,  rather  than  have  it  dealt  with 
by  different  persons,  at  the  same  time,  eacli  ignorant  to  a  great  extent  of 
the  action  of  the  other.  Besides,  it  is  due  to  frankness  to  say  that,  if  a 
convention  is  to  be  negotiated  for  an  accession  by  the  United  States  to  the 
treaty  of  Paris,  without  amendment  to  the  first  clause,  I  would  prefer  it 
should  be  done  at  Washington  rather  than  Paris.  Still,  I  hold  myself 
subject  to  the  orders  of  the  government  in  this  as  in  other  matters.  1  have 
already  said  I  should  await  further  instructions  from  your  department  on 
this  subject. 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  truly  yours, 

WILLIAM  L  DAYTON. 

lion.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


219 


Mr.  Dayton  to. Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  21.]  Paris,  July  22,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatches,  Nos.  24  and  25,  are  duly  received.  Despatches  19, 
22,  and  24,  treat  in  whole  or  in  part  of  the  same  general  matter. 

I  have  read  despatch  No.  19  with  great  interest.  It  had  not  occurred  to 
me  that  you  might  deny  to  France  and  Great  Britain  an  official  reading  of 
their  despatches  which  announced  to  our  government  their  concession  of 
belligerent  rights  to  the  south;  or  that,  if  you  should  do  so,  it  would  alter 
the  relations  of  parties  to  the  question.  If  it  has  that  effect  diplomatically, 
or  relieves  you  from  noticing  their  position,  you  were  certainly  right.  Indeed, 
I  cannot  see  how,  upon  the  ground  that  you  put  the  matter,  France  has  just 
cause  of  offence.  You  say  merely  you  want  no  notice  of  a  purpose  by  her 
to  do  what  you  consider  an  unfriendly  act;  that  you  will  wait  until  the  act 
is  done  before  you  choose  to  notice  it;  that,  in  other  words,  you  choose  to 
consider  her  as  a  friend  until  she  shows  herself  by  acts,  not  words,  to  be 
the  contrary.  ****** 

The  reasons  assigned  for  your  course  you  say  I  may  communicate  to  the 
French  government  if  I  “shall  find  it  necessary  or  expedient.”  I  shall  not 
fail  to  avail  myself  of  this  authority  upon  the  earliest  opportunity  which 
shall  be  afforded  for  doing  so.  The  just  reasoning  and  friendly  tone  of  your 
despatch  will  be  invaluable  for  justification  of  your  course  and  the  pre¬ 
vention  of  difficulties.  Unless,  however,  they  refer  to  your  action  or  make 
it  a  subject  of  complaint,  it  is,  1  suppose,  not  expedient  for  me  to  volunteer 
explanations.  I  was  much  surprised  by  one  fact  found  in  the  despatch  from 
the  French  government  left  with  you  for  an  informal  reading,  to  wit:  that 
you  must  not  be  surprised  if  France  should  address  herself  to  a  government 
which  she  says  is  to  be  installed  at  Montgomery  for  certain  explanations. 
I  could  not  have  anticipated,  from  what  had  been  said  to  me  here,  that  such 
a  course  was  in  contemplation.  Should  they  adopt  it,  the  act  would  seem 
to  me  to  approximate  a  recognition  in  this  instance  of  the  southern  govern¬ 
ment  more  nearly  than  anything  that  has  yet  occurred.  In  that  event,  your 
future  course  will,  no  doubt,  be  guided  by  that  wisdom  which  is  so  essential 
to  carry  us  through  the  troubles  of  our  present  position.  *  *  * 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon.  Wm.  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

[Extract.] 

No.  30.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  26,  1861. 

gjj,.  ******** 

The  President  is  not  impatient  about  the  negotiations  concerning  neutral 
rights.  We  trust  that  we  have  kept  our  own  position  right  and  clear. 

You  will  probably  find  some  anxiety  on  the  part  of  the  French  govern¬ 
ment  concerning  a  law  which  has  passed  Congress  authorizing  the  President 


220 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


to  close  the  ports  held  by  the  insurgents.  I  send  you  a  copy  of  my  instruc¬ 
tions  to  Mr.  Adams  on  that  subject,  which  you  will  receive  for  your  own 
government  in  that  matter. 

>1*  f  O/ 

'j'  'T*  'i'  'f'  /Jv 


I  am,  &c., 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  Sc .,  Sc.,  Sc. 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 
[Extract.] 


No.  31.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  30,  1861.  • 

vL>  <Jy  vC»  O/ 

^  J  J)  •  'r  'T*  'T  'T-  'T-  'T*  'T*  ■'T* 

You  will  receive  the  account  of  a  deplorable  reverse  of  our  arms  at  Manassas. 
For  a  week  or  two  that  event  will  elate  the  friends  of  the  insurgents  in 
Europe  as  it  confounded  and  bewildered  the  friends  of  the  Union  here  for 
two  or  three  days.  The  shock,  however,  has  passed  away,  producing  no 
other  results  than  a  resolution  stronger  and  deeper  than  ever  to  maintain 
the  L^nion,  and  a  prompt  and  effective  augmentation  of  the  forces  for  that 
end  exceeding  what  would  otherwise  have  been  possible.  The  heart  of  the 
country  is  sound.  Its  temper  is  now  more  favorable  to  the  counsels  of  de¬ 
liberation  and  wisdom. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

W  iLLiAM  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  22.]  Paris,  July  30,  1861. 

Sir:  On  the  21st  of  this  month  I  received  a  note  from  Mr.  Adams,  a  copy 
of  which,  marked  A,  is  hereunto  annexed,  apprising  me  that,  under  renewed 
instructions  from  the  government  at  Washington,  he  had  proposed  to  the 
British  government,  on  the  lltli  of  this  month,  to  negotiate  on  the  basis  of 
the  project  which  had  been  transmitted  to  him  soon  after  his  arrival  at 
London,  touching  the  four  points  of  the  declaration  of  the  convention  at 
Paris  in  1856,  and  inquiring  whether  I  felt  empowered  and  disposed  to  re¬ 
move  the  obstacle  of  delay  by  entering  at  once  into  an  arrangement  for 
simultaneous  action  with  the  Emperor  of  the  French.  Accompanying  his 
note  was  the  copy  of  a  communication  from  Lord  John  Russell,  dated  July 
18,  1861,  of  which  I  send  a  copy,  (though  I  doubt  not  Mr.  Adams  has  antici¬ 
pated  me  in  doing  so.)  Feeling  the  great  importance  of  this  matter,  and 
mindful  of  your  request  that  we  should  confer  together  when  we  could,  I 
immediately  went  over  to  London. 

I  found,  by  the  date  of  your  renewed  instructions  to  Mr.  Adams,  that  you 
did  not  intend  the  negotiation  upon  this  question  should  be  conducted  at 
Washington,  but  that  it  should  be  done  on  this  side;  and  further,  that  with 
a  full  knowledge  of  all  the  facts,  the  original  purpose  of  acceding  to  the 
treaty  of  Paris  of  1856  was  adhered  to.  Under  these  circumstances,  I  felt 
it  my  duty  to  say  to  Mr.  Adams  that  there  need  be  no  delay  on  my  account. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


221 


To  facilitate  matters,  while  I  was  yet  in  London  I  made  to  him,  in  writing, 
a  communication  to  that  effect,  of  which  I  send  you  a  copy,  marked  B. 

You  will  observe  that  I  ask  Mr.  Adams,  in  this  communication,  whether 
Great  Britain  has,  at  his  instance,  or  otherwise,  considered  the  Marcy  amend¬ 
ment  ?  This  was  done  after  conference  with  him,  and  after  he  had  told  me 
what  would  be  his  answer.  He  said  that  after  I  had  made  the  proposition 
here  it  was  considered  at  London,  and  Lord  John  Russell,  upon  his  (Mr. 
Adams)  suggesting  this  amendment  to  the  treaty  there,  said  at  once  that 
the  principle  was  inadmissible;  that  the  British  government  would  not  assent 
to  it.  This  answer  I  thought  it  most  desirable  we  should  have  on  record, 
and  therefore  made  a  suggestion  in  my  note  which  Mr.  Adams  said  he  would 
adopt.  Great  Britain,  so  far  as  I  know,  never  has,  before  this,  distinctly 
placed  herself  on  record  against  the  adoption  of  that  humane  and  noble 
principle  as  a  provision  of  maritime  law. 

I  was  much  gratified  that  I  had  gone  over  to  London.  I  felt  a  sense  of 
relief  in  conferring  with  Mr.  Adams  upon  questions  of  so  much  importance, 
and  got  knowledge  of  some  facts  of  which  I  had  no  knowledge  before.  I 
was  in  England  but  two  days,  and  then  returned  immediately  to  Paris.  I 
missed,  however,  the  mail  by  the  steamer  of  last  week,  which  I  much  regretted. 

With  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  Wm.  H.  Seward. 


Foreign  Office,  July  18,  1861. 

Sir:  Upon  considering  your  proposition  of  Saturday  last  I  have  two  re¬ 
marks  to  make: 

1.  The  course  hitherto  followed  has  been  a  simple  notification  of  adherence 
to  the  declaration  of  Paris  by  those  states  which  were  not  originally  parties 
to  it, 

2.  The  declaration  of  Paris  was  one  embracing  various  powers,  with  a 
view  to  general  concurrence  upon  questions  of  maritime  law,  and  not  an 
insulated  engagement  between  two  powers  only. 

Her  Majesty’s  government  are  willing  to  waive  entirely  any  objection  on 
the  first  of  these  heads,  and  to  accept  the  form  which  the  government  of 
the  United  States  prefers. 

With  regard  to  the  second,  her  Majesty’s  government  arc  of  opinion  that 
they  should  be  assured  that  the  United  States  are  ready  to  enter  into  a 
similar  engagement  with  France,  and  with  other  maritime  powers,  who  are 
parties  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  and  do  not  propose  to  make  singly  and 
separately  a  convention  with  Great  Britain  only. 

But  as  much  time  might  be  required  for  separate  communications  between 
the  government  of  the  United  States  and  all  the  maritime  powers  who  were 
parties  to  or  have  acceded  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  her  Majesty’s  gov¬ 
ernment  would  deem  themselves  authorized  to  advise  the  Queen  to  conclude 
a  convention  on  this  subject  with  the  President  of  the  United  States  so  soon 
as  they  shall  have  been  informed  that  a  similar  convention  has  been  agreed 
upon,  and  is  ready  for  signature,  between  the  President  of  the  United  States 
and  the  Emperor  of  the  French,  so  that  the  two  conventions  might  be 
signed  simultaneously  and  on  the  same  day. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most 
obedient,  humble  servant, 

J.  RUSSELL. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  &o.,  dec.,  dec. 


222 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


B. 


London,  July  25,  1861. 

Sir:  Yours  of  the  19th  instant,  enclosing  a  copy  of  Lord  John  Russell’s 
of  the  18th  instant,  was  duly  received  by  me  at  Paris.  My  powers  to  nego¬ 
tiate  with  France  an  accession  by  the  United  States  to  the  treaty  of  Paris 
of  1856  are  of  the  same  general  character  as  your  own.  Under  those 
powers  and  the  instructions  received  by  me  from  Washington  I  did  propose 
such  accession  to  the  government  of  France,  but  with  an  addition  to  the 
first  clause  of  the  following  words:  “And  the  private  property  of  subjects 
or  citizens  of  one  of  the  belligerents  shall  not  be  seized,  upon  the  high  seas, 
by  tne  vessels  of  war  of  the  other  belligerents,  unless  it  may  be  contraband 
of  war.”  To  this  proposition  I  received  an  answer  from  the  French  min¬ 
ister  of  foreign  affairs,  dated  June  20,  1861,  the  substance  of  which  wTas 
that  the  French  government  declined  to  consider  the  proposition  (inasmuch 
as  it  differed  from  the  provisions  of  the  treaty  of  Paris)  unless  it  was 
addressed  to  all  the  powers  who  were  parties  to  that  convention.  Tn  the 
meantime  I  saw  it  stated  in  the  public  press  of  Europe  that  the  British, 
French,  Spanish,  and  Belgian  governments  had  made  a  declaration  of  their 
intentions  as  respects  their  conduct  towards  the  United  States  government 
and  the  insurgents  of  the  south,  and  I  was  not  certain  whether  our  govern¬ 
ment  would  desire,  under  the  circumstances,  that  the  proposition  to  accede 
to  the  treaty  in  question,  without  the  amendment,  should  be  made. 

Your  renewed  instructions  to  proceed  on  the  basis  of  that  treaty  are  sub¬ 
sequent  to  and  with  a  full  knowledge  by  our  government  of  the  facts  here¬ 
inbefore  stated. 

Under  these  circumstances,  therefore,  I  feel  authorized  and  required  to 
proceed  without  further  delay.  Before,  however,  I  shall  communicate  further 
with  the  French  government,  I  wish  to  know  whether  Great  Britain  has,  at 
your  instance,  or  otherwise,  considered  the  amendment  of  the  treaty  here¬ 
inbefore  referred  to.  Before  abandoning  the  hope  of  obtaining  the  incor¬ 
poration,  in  our  code  of  maritime  law,  of  that  great  and  humane  principle, 
it  seems  to  me  desirable  that  we  should  have  distinct  assurance  that  the 
principle  will  not  be  admitted.  I  do  not  recollect  that  Great  Britain  has 
any  time,  heretofore,  answered  distinctly,  if  at  all,  upon  that  proposition, 
but  seems  rather  to  have  avoided  it.  I  think  it  desirable  that  that  answer 
should  be  of  record,  (either  in  a  note  from  or  to  you,)  so  that  the  respon¬ 
sibility  may  attach,  through  all  time,  where  it  properly  belongs. 

Immediately  upon  the  receipt  of  your  answer  I  will  enclose  a  copy  of 
your  notes,  in  connexion  with  that  from  Lord  John  Russell  to  the  French 
government,  and,  as  soon  as  heard  from,  advise  you  of  its  reply. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  Chas.  F.  Adams. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract  ] 

No.  24.]  Paris,  August  2,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  27  was  not  received  by  me  until  after  my  return 
from  London. 

By  my  note  to  Mr.  Adams,  written  in  London,  and  to  be  found  in  de- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


223 


spatch  No.  22,  you  will  find  your  instructions  were  anticipated  by  my  action; 
that  immediately  upon  learning,  from  a  reliable  source,  what  were  the  views 
of  the  government  in  regard  to  an  accession  to  the  treaty  of  Paris,  expressed 
with  full  knowledge  of  facts  occurring  since  its  original  instructions  to  me, 
I  at  once  took  measures  to  comply  with  them,  without  attempting  to  balance 
the  suggestions  of  my  own  mind  against  its  known  wishes.  But  I  confess 
that  in  a  matter  of  such  grave  importance  as  an  accession  by  the  United 
States  to  that  treaty,  I  did  want  those  wishes  distinctly  expressed  with  full 
knowledge  of  the  facts.  You  will  observe,  by  the  copy  of  a  communication 
to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  (marked  A,)  and  hereunto  annexed,  that 
I  have  already  moved  in  the  matter  here. 

^  v*/  v  ^  v  vt/  xly 

w  ^  ^  ^ 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


A. 


Paris,  August  2,  1861. 

Sir:  I  had  the  honor  to  inform  your  excellency  some  time  since  that  I  was 
authorized,  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States,  to  treat  with  any  person  or 
persons  authorized  by  the  Emperor  concerning  the  principles  of  maritime 
law  which  affect  neutral  and  belligerent  rights  at  sea,  and  other  matters 
connected  therewith,  of  interest  to  the  two  nations,  and  on  the  31st  of  May 
last  proposed  to  your  excellency  an  accession  by  the  United  States  to  the 
treaty  of  Paris  of  1856,  with  certain  words  of  addition  thereto. 

Under  date  of  26th  of  June  last  I  received  a  reply  from  your  excellency 
stating  that  the  protocols  of  the  congress  of  Paris  impose  upon  all  the 
powers  who  signed  the  declaration  of  the  16th  of  April  the  obligation  not 
to  negotiate,  separately,  upon  the  application  of  maritime  rights  in  time  of 
war,  any  arrangement  which  differed  from  the  declaration  resolved  upon  in 
common,  and  that,  as  a  consequence,  it  would  be  necessary  that  my  offer 
include  the  other  powers  signing  the  declaration  before  it  would  be  con¬ 
sidered. 

At  the  time  the  foregoing  offer  was  made  I  had  some  reason  to  believe 
that  it  might  be  accepted  by  all  the  powers  who  negotiated  that  treaty,  but 
subsequent  information  (the  nature  of  which  I  have  explained  to  you)  has 
satisfied  me  that  this  was  an  error. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  would  have  preferred  the  incorpora¬ 
tion  in  the  treaty  of  the  amendment  before  referred  to;  and  when  there 
shall  be  any  hope  for  the  adoption  of  that  beneficent  feature  by  the  neces¬ 
sary  parties  as  a  principle  of  the  law  of  nations,  the  United  States  will  not 
only  be  ready  to  agree  to  it,  but  even  to  propose  it,  and  to  lead  in  the  neces- 
sarv  negotiations. 

Under  existing  circumstances  I  am  satisfied  that  I  would  not  be  justified 
in  further  delaying  negotiations  for  an  accession  by  the  United  States  to 
the  treaty  of  Paris  of  1856,  in  the  vain  hope  that  the  amendment  in  ques¬ 
tion,  if  proposed  to  all  the  powers,  would,  at  present,  be  accepted.  1  have 
the  honor,  therefore,  to  apprise  your  excellency  that  I  am  prepared,  on  the 
part  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  hereby  propose  to  your 
excellency,  to  enter  into  a  convention  with  the  Emperor  of  the  French  for 


224 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


accession  by  the  United  States  to  the  “  declaration  concerning  maritime 
law”  adopted  by  the  plenipotentiaries  of  France,  Great  Britain,  Austria, 
Prussia,  Russia,  Sardinia,  and  Turkey,  at  Paris,  on  the  16th  of  April,  1856, 
and  that  1  have  special  authority  for  this  purpose  from  the  President  of  the 
United  States,  dated  26th  of  April  last,  which  I  shall  be  happy  to  submit  to 
your  excellency.  I  beg  likewise,  in  this  connexion,  to  say  to  your  excellency 
that  a  like  proposition  has  been  made  by  Mr.  Adams  to  her  Britannic 
Majesty,  and  herewith  I  deem  it  proper  to  enclose  you  a  copy  of  the  reply 
of  Lord  John  Russell. 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  very  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

Monsieur  le  Mixistre. 


Mr.  Seicard  to  Mr.  Dayton. 
[Confidential.] 


No.  41.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  17,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  send  you  a  copy  of  a  despatch,  which  is  this  day  sent  to  Mr  Adams, 
concerning  the  negotiations  with  Great  Britain  for  the  melioration  of  inter¬ 
national  law  relating  to  the  rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime  war. 

You  will,  of  course,  wait  in  your  negotiations,  at  Paris,  until  the  result  of 
the  explanations,  which  Mr.  Adams  is  instructed  to  ask,  shall  have  been 
received  and  duly  considered.  There  is  reason,  however,  to  expect  that 
the  delay  which  thus  becomes  necessary  will  be  moved  for  by  Mr.  Thouvenel 
himself  when  he  shall  have  become  advised  of  the  new  and  singular  position 
assumed  by  Lord  John  Russell. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Wm.  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c .,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 
[Extract  ] 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  August  17,  1861. 

>|c 

You  will  learn  from  a  distinct  despatch,  No.  41,  which  accompanies  or  which 
will  soon  follow  this,  that  our  negotiation  in  England  has  taken  a  new  phase, 
which,  of  course,  will  soon  present  itself  in  discussion  with  the  French 
government. 

Treason  was  emboldened  by  its  partial  success  at  Manassas,  but  the 
Union  now  grows  manifestly  stronger  every  day.  Let  us  see  how  Great 
Britain  will  explain. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


No.  42.] 
Sir  : 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


225 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  46.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  19,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  22,  under  the  date  of  July  30,  has  been  received. 
It  relates  to  an  interview,  and  is  accompanied  by  a  correspondence  between 
yourself  and  Mr.  Adams. 

Your  proceedings  and  your  letter  are  deemed  judicious,  and  are  fully 
approved. 

In  communications  which  have  preceded  this  I  have  already  said  all  that 
the  despatch  now  before  me  seems  to  require. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  Ac.,  Ac.,  Ac. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  29.]  Paris,  August  19,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  despatches  Nos.  29, 
30,  and  31. 

<Lf 

vL» 

^  ^  'I'  'I'  /J* 

Your  despatch  No.  30  includes  copies  of  despatches  42  and  46  to  Mr.  Adams. 
These  are  of  great  interest,  as  they  affect  the  question  of  our  blockade  of 
the  southern  ports.  I  never  think  it  wise  to  volunteer  a  subject  out  of  which 
complaints  may  arise  before  they  are  brought  to  my  notice  by  the  party 
likely  to  complain;  but  should  occasion  arise,  I  shall  avail  myself  fully  of 
the  views  suggested  by  you  as  to  the  purpose  and  object  of  the  late  act  of 
Congress  authorizing  the  President  to  close  the  ports  by  proclamation.  But 
I  very  much  fear  that  difficulties  will  grow  up  between  us  and  Great  Britain 
and  Prance  upon  this  question.  Unless  the  ports  are  hermetically  sealed  by 
blockade,  not  by  proclamation — if  these  countries  get  short  of  cotton,  and 
we  are  not  ourselves  in  possession  of  the  interior — excuses  enough  will  be 
made  for  breaking  the  blockade.  The  tone  of  the  public  press  here  indicates 
this;  the  private  conversation  of  public  men  indicate  it. 

^  ^  \l/  xV  vi.  >1/  vL.  V*  ^ 

^  ^  ^  ^ 

vL.  xl.  \l/  vjr  *1^ 

^  ^  <|X  'I*  'j'  /|X 

With  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 

William  H.  Seward,  Esq.,  &c.,  Ac.,  Ac. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  31.]  Paris,  August  19,  1861. 

Sir:  On  Thursday  of  last  week  I  was  informed  by  Lord  Cowley  that  Mr. 
Adams  and  Lord  John  Russell  had  agreed  upon  the  text  of  a  convention  in 
respect  to  maritime  rights,  &c.  On  the  following  day  a  copy  of  this  con¬ 
vention  was  sent  to  me  by  Lord  Cowley.  I  find  it  substantially,  if  not 

15 


226 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


literally,  the  same  as  that  which  you  enclosed  to  me,  and  directed  me  to  ex¬ 
ecute.  I  am  to  see  Mr.  Thouvenel  upon  the  subject  by  appointment  to-mor¬ 
row.  Unless  something  shall  occur,  altering  the  existing  condition  of  things, 
this  convention  will  doubtless  be  executed  at  an  early  day.  Your  despatch 
No.  30  says,  “  the  President  is  not  impatient  about  the  negotiations  concern¬ 
ing  neutral  rights,”  but  your  prior  despatches  and  the  action  of  Mr.  Adams 
have  put  any  considerable  delay  out  of  my  power.  Besides,  if  the  treaty  is 
to  be  executed,  whether  it  be  done  a  few  days  or  weeks  earlier  or  later  is, 
perhaps,  not  very  important.  I  have  felt  much  relieved  in  this  negotiation 
by  the  specific  character  of  my  instructions. 

With  great  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 

The  Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  &c &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  35.]  Paris,  August  22,  1861. 

Sir:  My  anticipations  expressed  in  despatch  No.  10  are  fully  realized. 
Both  Lord  John  Russell  and  Mr.  Thouvenel  refuse  to  negotiate  for  an  acces¬ 
sion  by  the  United  States  to  the  treaty  of  Paris  of  1856,  except  on  the 
distinct  understanding  that  it  is  to  have  no  bearing,  directly  or  indirectly,  on 
the  question  of  our  southern  or  domestic  difficulty,  and  to  render  the  matter 
certain  they  each  propose  to  make  a  written  declaration  simultaneous  with 
the  execution  of  the  convention,  of  which  I  herewith  send  you  a  copy  and  a 
translation.  1  likewise  send  you  a  copy  of  Mr.  ThouvenePs  note  to  me  with 
its  translation. 

I  had  an  interview  on  Tuesday,  the  20th  instant,  with  Mr.  Thouvenel  by 
appointment  in  reference  to  the  subject-matter  of  the  convention,  and  then 
he  gave  me  the  first  notice  of  the  purpose  of  the  French  government  to 
execute  this  outside  declaration,  predicated  as  it  was,  beyond  all  doubt,  upon 
a  note  lie  had  just  received  from  Lord  John  Russell,  dated  only  the  day 
preceding  He  said  that  both  France  and  Great  Britain  had  already 
announced  that  they  would  take  no  part  in  our  domestic  controversy,  and 
they  thought  that  a  frank  and  open  declaration  in  advance  of  the  execution 
of  this  convention  might  save  difficulty  and  misconception  hereafter.  He 
further  said,  in  the  way  of  specification,  that  the  provisions  of  the  treaty 
standing  alone  might  bind  England  and  France  to  pursue  and  punish  the 
privateers  of  the  south  as  pirates.  That  they  were  unwilling  to  do  this, 
and  had  already  so  declared.  He  said  that  we  could  deal  with  these  people 
as  we  chose,  and  they  could  only  express  their  regrets  on  the  score  of 
humanity  if  we  should  deal  with  them  as  pirates,  but  they  could  not  partici¬ 
pate  in  such  a  course.  He  said,  further,  that  although  both  England  and 
France  were  anxious  to  have  the  adhesion  of  the  United  States  to  the  dec¬ 
laration  of  Paris,  that  they  would  rather  dispense  with  it  altogether  than  be 
drawn  into  our  domestic  controversy.  He  insisted  somewhat  pointedly  that 
I  could  take  no  just  exception  to  this  outside  declaration,  simultaneous  with 
the  execution  of  the  convention,  unless  we  intended  they  should  be  made 
parties  to  our  controversy;  and  that  the  very  fact  of  my  hesitation  was  an 
additional  reason  why  they  should  insist  upon  making  such  contemporaneous 
declaration.  These  are  the  general  views  expressed  by  him. 

In  answer,  I  assented  at  once  to  the  propriety  of  such  declaration  being 
made  in  advance  if  France  and  England  did  not  mean  to  abide  by  the  terms  of 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


227 


the  treaty.  I  stated  that  I  had  no  reason  to  suppose  that  the  United  States 
desired  to  embroil  these  countries  in  our  domestic  difficulties — that  in  point 
of  fact  our  great  desire  had  been  that  they  should  keep  out  of  them ;  but 
they  proposed  now  to  make  a  declaration  to  accompany  the  execution  of 
the  convention  which  they  admitted  would  vary  its  obligations.  That  my 
instructions  were  to  negotiate  that  convention,  and  that  1  had  no  authority 
to  do  anything  or  listen  to  anything  which  would  waive  any  rights  or  relieve 
from  any  obligation  which  might  fairly  arise  from  a  just  construction  of  its 
terms.  He  said  they  did  not  mean  to  alter  its  terms,  that  it  was  not  like 
an  addition  of  other  provisions  to  the  terms  of  the  treaty  itself.  To  this  I 
replied,  that  for  the  purpose  intended,  it  was  precisely  the  same  as  if  this 
declaration  they  proposed  to  make  were  to  be  incorporated  into  the  treaty 
itself.  That  its  effect  was  to  relieve  them  (without  complaint  on  our  part) 
from  compliance  with  one  of  the  admitted  obligations  of  the  treaty.  1  then 
told  him  I  would  consult  with  Mr.  Adams,  and  it  was  not  improbable  that 
we  might  feel  ourselves  under  the  necessity  of  referring  again  to  our  govern¬ 
ment,  to  which  he  answered  that  that  must  be  a  question  for  us  to  determine. 
In  the  course  of  our  conversation  I  told  him  that  any  declaration  or  action 
which  looked  to  or  recognized  a  difference  or  distinction  between  the  north 
and  south  was  a  matter  upon  which  our  government  was,  under  the  circum¬ 
stances,  peculiarly  sensitive.  That  we  treated  with  foreign  governments 
for  our  whole  country,  north  and  south,  and  for  all  its  citizens,  whether  true 
men  or  rebels,  and  when  we  could  not  so  treat,  we  would  cease  to  treat  at 
all.  He  answered  that  they  did  not  mean  to  contest  our  right  to  treat  for 
the  whole  country,  and  that  was  not  the  purpose  of  the  outside  declaration 
they  proposed  to  make;  but  having  heretofore  adopted  a  course  of  strict 
neutrality,  the  declaration  in  question  was  right  and  proper  to  prevent  mis¬ 
conception  and  controversy  in  the  future. 

After  my  conference  with  Mr.  Thouvenel  closed,  I  immediately  wrote  to 
Mr.  Adams,  and  suggested  to  him  the  propriety  of  either  referring  again  to 
our  government  for  instructions,  or,  if  he  thought  that  such  reference  would 
involve  any  unnecessary  delay,  then,  at  least,  that  at  the  time  of  executing 
the  convention  (if  it  were  executed)  we  should  in  like  manner  make  a  counter 
declaration  in  writing,  stating,  in  substance,  that  “  we  have  no  power  to 
admit,  and  do  not  moan  to  admit,  that  this  outside  declaration  by  Great 
Britain  and  France  is  to  relieve  them,  directly  or  indirectly,  from  any  obli¬ 
gation  or  duty  which  would  otherwise  devolve  upon  them  in  virtue  of  said 
convention.” 

I  have  felt  constrained  to  make  these  suggestions  to  Mr.  Adams,  for  I  am 
unwilling  to  act  affirmatively  in  a  matter  of  so  much  importance  without 
being  clearly  within  my  instructions.  I  shall  await  his  answer  before  I 
communicate  further  with  the  French  government. 

With  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  &c.,  &c. 


[Translation.] 

Paris,  August  20,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  communicate  to  you  the  text  of  the  written 
declaration  that  I  propose  to  myself  to  make,  and  of  which  I  wiU  take  care 
to  remit  to  you  a  copy,  at  the  moment  of  the  signing  of  the  convention 


228 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


designed  to  render  obligatory  between  France  and  the  United  States  the 
principles  upon  maritime  rights  proclaimed  by  the  congress  of  Paris.  This 
declaration  has  for  its  object,  as  you  will  see,  to  prevent  all  misunderstanding 
upon  the  nature  of  the  engagements  which  the  government  of  the  Emperor 
is  disposed  to  contract. 

If  you  were  ready  to  sign  the  convention  contemplated,  we  might  be  able 
to  agree  to  make  it  the  same  day  when  Lord  Russell  should  proceed  from 
his  side  to  the  signing  of  a  similar  act  with  Mr.  Adams. 

Accept  the  assurances  of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  be,  sir,  your  verv  humble  and  very  obedient  servant, 

THOUVENEL. 

Mr.  Dayton, 

Minister  of  the  United  States  at  Paris. 


[Translation.] 

Draft  of  declaration. 

In  affixing  his  signature  to  the  convention  concluded  in  date  of  this  day 
between  France  and  the  United  States,  the  undersigned  declares,  in  execu¬ 
tion  of  the  orders  of  the  Emperor,  that  the  government  of  his  Majesty  does 
not  intend  to  undertake,  by  the  said  convention,  any  engagement  of  a  nature 
to  implicate  it,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  internal  conflict  now  existing  in 
the  United  States. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

m 

No.  3U]  Paris,  August  29,  1861. 

Sir:  Herewith  I  beg  to  enclose  a  copy  of  a  communication  made  by  me  to 
Mr.  Thouvenel,  in  answer  to  his  formal  notice  of  a  purpose  on  the  part  of 
the  French  government  to  make  an  outside  declaration  of  its  intentions  at 
the  time  of  the  execution  of  the  treaty,  copies  of  which  were  enclosed  in 
despatch  No.  35. 

It  is  in  part  the  same  matter  suggested  to  him  by  me  in  the  conference  in 
which  he  first  notified  me  of  his  purpose.  His  written  communication  sub¬ 
sequent  to  that  conference  required  a  like  formal  repty.  I  am  happy  to  learn 
from  a  communication  received  from  Mr.  Adams  that  he  concurs  with  me  in 
the  propriety  of  stopping  the  negotiation  where  it  is,  and  referring  the  matter 
to  the  government  at  home.  I  should  have  been  most  reluctant,  under  the 
circumstances,  to  execute  this  convention,  had  Mr.  Adams  insisted  upon  it, 
making  only  a  counter  declaration,  such  as  was  referred  to  in  despatch  No. 
35;  but  I  was  very  desirous,  after  what  had  passed,  not  to  be  considered  an 
obstacle  in  the  way  of  carrying  out  the  wishes  of  the  administration.  I 
doubt  now,  however,  if  England  ana  France  would  themselves  have  assented 
to  proceed  with  the  execution  of  the  convention  in  the  face  of  such  declaration. 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c.,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


229 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Thouvenel. 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Paris,  August  26,  1861. 

Monsieur  le  Ministre  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of 
your  communication  of  the  20th  instant,  in  which  (carrying  out  the  purpose 
expressed  by  you  in  our  prior  conversation  of  that  day)  you  communicate 
to  me  the  text  of  a  written  declaration  which  you  propose  to  make  simulta¬ 
neous  with  the  execution  of  the  convention  between  the  United  States  and 
France,  in  reference  to  the  principles  upon  maritime  rights  proclaimed  by 
the  Congress  of  Paris  in  1856.  You  further  suggest  in  your  note  that  if  I 
were  ready  to  sign  the  convention  contemplated,  we  might  be  able  to  agree 
to  do  so  the  same  day  when  Lord  Russell  should  proceed,  on  his  side,  to  the 
signing  of  a  like  convention  with  Mr.  Adams 

The  declaration  which  you  propose  to  make  in  writing,  simultaneous  with 
the  execution  of  the  convention,  has  for  its  object,  you  say,  “to  prevent  all 
misunderstanding  as  to  the  nature  of  the  engagements  which  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Emperor  is  disposed  to  contract/7  and  this  declaration  is,  that 
“in  the  execution  of  the  orders  of  the  Emperor  the  government  of  his 
Maj  esty  does  not  intend  to  undertake,  by  said  convention,  any  engagements 
of  a  nature  to  implicate  it  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  internal  conflict  now 
existing  in  the  United  States.” 

My  impressions,  hastily  thrown  out  when  this  proposition  was  verbally 
suggested,  have  been  strengthened  by  subsequent  reflection.  I  do  not  stop 
to  inquire  how  such  outside  declaration  as  you  propose  may  affect  the  rights 
or  obligations  of  parties  under  the  treaty.  Indeed,  it  is  so  general  that  it 
may  not  be  possible  to  anticipate  its  entire  scope  or  operation.  It  gives  us 
notice  that  the  engagements  of  your  government  are  not  to  be  “  of  a  nature 
to  implicate  it  directly  or  indirectly  in  the  internal  conflict,”  &c.  It  may  be 
that  the  conduct  of  the  government  of  France,  under  this  declaration,  would 
practically  extend  no  further  than  would  be  agreeable  to  the  United  States; 
yet  I  cannot  act  upon  such  assumption.  My  instructions  are  to  negotiate  a 
particular  convention,  the  text  of  which  has  been  examined  and  approved, 
as  I  understand,  by  your  excellency.  If  the  declaration  which  you  propose 
to  make  does  not  alter  the  obligations  or  duties  which  would  otherwise 
devolve  upon  France,  in  virtue  of  that  convention,  it  is  useless  to  make  it. 
If  it  does  alter  such  obligations  or  duties,  then  I  am  not  authorized  to 
execute  the  convention  subject  to  such  declaration.  This,  indeed,  so  far  as 
my  action  at  present  is  concerned,  is  the  whole  case.  But  the  subject  justi¬ 
fies,  and  perhaps  requires  some  other  remarks.  You  stated  that  you  thought 
it  more  frank  and  loyal  to  make  your  declaration  in  advance,  and  in  this  I 
entirely  concurred.  If  the  treaty  without  such  declaration  would  impose 
any  duty  upon  France  which  she  would  be  unwilling  to  perform,  it  was 
manifestly  proper  that  she  should  declare  her  purpose  in  advance.  It  was 
proper,  not  only  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  misunderstanding  as  to  the 
nature  of  her  intended  engagements,  but  for  the  other  purposes  of  leaving 
to  the  United  States  the  option  of  determining,  with  full  knowledge,  whether 
she  would  or  would  not  enter  into  the  treaty  subject  to  such  declaration. 
The  declaration,  it  is  true,  is  not  strictly  a  part  of  the  treaty,  yet,  for  (he 
purpose  intended,  its  effect  and  operation  would  be  the  same  as  if  it  were 
incorporated  into  the  treaty  itself.  It  will  prevent  misunderstandings  as  to 
the  nature  of  the  engagements,  or,  in  other  words,  it  will  prevent  one  party 
complaining  of  a  non-performance  of  supposed  engagements  by  the  other 
under  the  treaty,  just  as  effectively  as  if  it  were  a  condition  added  to  the 
treaty  itself,  lint  for  the  interposition  of  this  declaration  I  should  have 


230 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


assented  to  the  execution  of  the  treaty  at  once;  as  it  is,  I  have  no  power  to 

do  so. 

From  this  it  must  not  be  inferred  that  there  is  now,  or  at  any  time  has 
been,  the  slightest  wish  upon  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  involve  France 
or  any  other  foreign  government  in  its  domestic  controversy.  The  wish, 
nay,  stronger  than  this,  the  right  to  be  let  alone  by  other  nations,  has  been 
claimed  at  all  times,  so  far  as  I  know,  by  our  government  and  its  repre¬ 
sentatives  abroad.  They  have  never  failed  to  deprecate,  in  the  most  earnest 
manner,  all  interference  in  this  question  upon  the  part  of  foreign  powers. 
Yet  the  declaration  which  it  is  now  proposed  to  make  would  seem  to  imply 
that  such  interference  might  be  claimed  by  us  at  the  hands  of  those  powers 
with  whom  such  treaty  might  be  made.  I  submit,  with  great  respect,  that 
there  is  nothing  in  the  present  position  of  the  United  States,  or  in  the  past 
history  of  this  negotiation,  which  would  justify  such  an  inference.  When 
the  present  administration  at  Washington  came  into  power  it  almost 
immediately  gave  orders  to  its  representatives  abroad  to  open  negotiations 
upon  this  general  subject;  not,  it  is  to  be  assumed,  for  any  small  purpose 
or  object  growing  out  of  what  they  then  believed  to  be  a  mere  temporary 
insurrection,  but  with  a  view  to  the  settlement,  so  far  as  their  assent  could 
settle  the  same,  of  certain  great  principles  of  maritime  law. 

The  second  and  third  of  those  principles,  enunciated  in  the  declaration  of 
Paris,  has  been  already  proposed  and  urged  upon  the  attention  of  other 
nations  by  the  United  States. 

The  fourth  of  those  principles,  which  requires  that  blockades  to  be  respected 
shall  be  effective,  had  never  been  denied  (at  least  by  the  United  States)  as 
a  principle  of  international  or  maritime  law.  It  was  the  first  only  of  the 
points  enunciated  in  that  celebrated  declaration  about  which  hesitation 
existed. 

The  abandonment  of  the  right,  by  belligerents,  to  issue  letters  of  marque 
and  reprisal,  under  proper  restraints,  was  a  serious  matter  to  a  country 
having  the  extended  commerce  and  limited  navy  of  the  United  States;  yet 
such  abandonment  by  all  nations  would,  we  well  knew,  tend  much  to  lessen 
the  afflictions  incident  to  war;  arid  so,  too,  the  exemption  of  property  of  non- 
combatants  at  sea,  (except  contraband,)  as  it  is  on  land,  would,  in  a  still 
greater  degree,  tend  to  the  same  end. 

Hence  the  disposition  manifested  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  on 
every  proper  occasion,  to  connect  in  its  negotiations  the  two;  to  make  the 
concession  of  the  one  the  equivalent,  if  possible,  of  the  concession  of  the 
other.  This  was  tire  condition  of  things  when  the  present  administration  at 
Washington  came  into  power.  Not  trammelled  by  certain  considerations 
which  had  affected  some  of  their  predecessors,  they  immediately  took  up  the 
negotiation  where  it  had  been  left  by  a  prior  administration.  Ascertaining 
definitely  that  the  exemption  of  private  property  afloat  (except  contraband) 
would  not  be  conceded  by  all  the  powers,  they  assented  at  once  to  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  a  convention,  adopting  the  four  principles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris 
as  they  are,  without  addition  and  without  limitation. 

Then,  for  the  first  time,  we  were  informed  that  the  government  of  his 
Majesty  the  Emperor  (in  connexion  with  that  of  her  Britannic  Majesty) 
would  only  execute  such  convention  subject  to  a  certain  condition,  which  it 
declares  for  itself,  and  of  the  extent  and  operation  of  which  it  is  itself  to 
judge. 

1  cannot,  of  course,  anticipate  with  certainty  what  view  the  government 
of  the  United  States  may  take  of  this  question,  but  I  can  scarcely  suppose 
it  will  assent  to  the  execution  of  a  convention  adopting  the  declaration  of 
Paris,  except  upon  terms  of  entire  reciprocity,  and  subject  to  no  other  con¬ 
dition  than  those  existing  by  and  between  the  original  parties;  nor  do  I  believe 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


231 


that  it  will,  in  its  negotiations  with  foreign  governments,  at  all  assent  to 
exceptions  and  reservations,  verbal  or  written,  predicated  upon  the  existing 
state  of  things  in  that  country.  It  will,  I  apprehend,  exact  no  more  and  be 
content  with  no  less  than  it  would  have  been  entitled  to  had  the  convention 
been  executed  in  advance  of  its  present  internal  controversy.  If,  therefore, 
the  government  of  France  shall  consider  that  an  unconditional  execution  of 
that  convention  will  demand  of  it  interference  in  our  affairs,  or  will  implicate 
it  in  any  shape  in  the  civil  war  now  raging  in  our  country,  then  it  is  obvious 
this  is  not  a  proper  time  for  her  or  for  us  to  enter  into  such  agreements. 

But  these  suggestions  are  made,  of  course,  subject  to  correction  from  the 
government  at  Washington.  To  it  I  shall  at  once  refer  the  communication 
of  your  excellency,  together  with  a  copy  of  the  declaration  which  you  have 
done  me  the  honor  to  submit  upon  the  part  of  the  French  government. 

I  avail  myself  of  the  opportunity  to  renew  to  your  excellency  assurances 
of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  very 
humble  and  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 

Monsieur  Thouvenel, 

Ministre  des  Affaires  Etrangeres. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  53.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  19,  No.  31,  has  been  received. 

Before  this  shall  reach  you,  my  instruction,  No.  41,  will  have  come  to  your 
hands.  In  that  paper  you  were  informed  that  you  would  be  expected  to  rest 
in  your  negotiation  concerning  maritime  rights  until  after  we  should  have 
received  some  explanations  from  Lord  Russell  on  a  point  raised  in  the  nego¬ 
tiation  at  London. 

Those  explanations  have  not  yet  been  received  here. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seivard. 

No.  44.]  Paris,  September  7,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatches,  41,  42,  and  43,  are  duly  received  through  Captain 
Schulz. 

Your  action,  indicated  in  41  and  42,  has  been  anticipated  by  me.  In  a 
letter  from  Mr.  Adams,  dated  London,  August  1,  1861,  he  encloses  me  a  copy 
of  Lord  John  Russell’s  note  of  July  31,  1861,  and  in  reference  to  the  vague 
paragraph  to  which  your  despatches  refer  he  says:  “I  do  not  quite  com¬ 
prehend  the  drift  of  the  last  paragraph,  but  I  presume  you  will  find  it  out 
in  the  progress  of  your  negotiation.”  This  I  immediately  answered  by  a 
letter,  of  which  I  herewith  send  you  a  copy. 

Their  subsequent  offer  to  make  a  written  outside  declaration  coternporanc- 
ous  with  the  execution  of  the  treaty  was  a  degree  of  frankness  which  I  did 


232 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


not  anticipate,  and  for  which  I  had  not  given  them  credit.  I  shall  wait  with 
great  pleasure,  according  to  your  instructions,  “  the  result  of  the  explanations 
which  Mr.  Adams  is  instructed  to  ask,”  but  I  expect  that  both  he  and  I  have 
already  received  all  necessary  explanations  on  that  point.  My  conversations, 
at  least  with  Mr.  Thouvenel,  have  covered  the  whole  ground,  as  stated  to 
you  in  despatch  No.  35.  I  add  that  I  communicated  immediately  to  Mr. 
Adams  the  substance  of  that  conversation  with  Mr.  Thouvenel. 

The  exequatur  of  James  Lesley,  appointed  consul  of  the  United  States  to 
Lyons,  was  applied  for  immediately  on  the  receipt  of  his  commission. 

With  much  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  your  obedient  servant, 

"  WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellencv  William  Id.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c. 


Paris,  August  5,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  acknowledge  with  pleasure  the  receipt  of  yours  of  the  1st  instant, 
enclosing  a  copy  of  your  note  to  Lord  John  Russel  and  his  reply.  I  feel 
that  we  have  done  a  good  thing  in  getting  the  reply  of  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  (declaring  the  amendment  to  the  treaty  of  Paris  inadmissible)  in  writ¬ 
ing.  At  least,  we  can  proceed  now,  under  our  instructions,  with  a  conscious¬ 
ness  that  we  not  only  have  not  neglected  this  point,  but  that  we  have  the 
evidence  of  having  pressed  it  affirmatively.  You  say  you  do  not  compre¬ 
hend  the  drift  of  the  last  paragraph  in  Lord  John’s  reply.  I  think  I  do,  at 
least,  in  part,  and  I  shall  not  be  surprised  if  the  meaning,  which  he  has  pur¬ 
posely  wrapped  up  in  that  general  language,  should  in  the  end  break  off  all 
negotiation.  He  may  not  refer  to  this  language  again,  but  unless  you  ask 
its  meaning  before  the  treaty  is  negotiated,  it  will  be  used  by  them  after¬ 
wards  as  an  excuse  for  not  carrying  it  in  effect  as  respects  the  insurrec¬ 
tionists  of  the  south.  The  paragraph  states,  “  the  engagement  of  Great 
Britain  will  be  prospective,  and  will  not  invalidate  anything  alread}^  done.” 
The  comment  after  the  treaty,  predicated  upon  this  language,  will  be:  “We 
had  declared  before  the  treaty  that  the  southern  insurrectionists  were  a  bel¬ 
ligerent  party,  and  entitled  to  belligerent  rights,  (among  which  is  the  right 
to  issue  letters  of  marque,)  and  the  treaty  was  to  be  prospective  only,  and 
not  to  invalidate  anything  already  done.  That,  in  other  words,  it  does  not 
bind  your  disloyal  citizens,  recognized  by  us  as  a  belligerent  party.”  I  long 
ago  wrote  Mr.  Seward  that  these  powers  would,  in  my  judgment,  either 
refuse  to  negotiate,  or,  if  they  did  negotiate,  it  would  be  with  the  under¬ 
standing  that  it  secured  us  no  rights  not  already  conceded,  and  charged 
them  with  no  duties  not  heretofore  acknowledged,  It  is  advisable  that  we 
raise  no  question  in  advance  in  reference  to  this  matter,  but  it  is  necessary 
that  we  know  what  they  mean  as  we  go  along. 

With  much  respect,  I  am  yours  truly, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  Chas.  F.  Adams, 

United  States  Minister. 


233 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  56.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  10,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  22,  No.  35,  has  been  received.  I  learn 
from  it  that  Mr.  Thouvenel  is  unwilling  to  negotiate  for  an  accession  by  the 
United  States  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  concerning  the 
rights  of  neutrals  in  maritime  war,  except  “  on  a  distinct  understanding  that 
it  is  to  have  no  bearing,  directly  or  indirectly,  on  the  question  of  the  domestic 
difficulty  now  existing  in  our  country,”  and  that  to  render  the  matter  certain 
Mr.  Thouvenel  proposes  to  make  a  written  declaration  simultaneously  with 
his  execution  of  the  projected  convention  for  that  accession. 

You  have  sent  me  a  copy  of  a  note  to  this  effect,  addressed  to  you  by  Mr. 
Thouvenel,  and  have  also  represented  to  me  an  official  conversation  which  he 
has  held  with  you  upon  the  same  subject.  The  declaration  which  Mr.  Thou¬ 
venel  thus  proposes  to  make  is  in  these  words: 

“draft  of  declaration. 

“  In  affixing  his  signature  to  the  convention  concluded  on’date  of  this  day 
between  France  and  the  United  States,  the  undersigned  declares,  in  execu¬ 
tion  of  the  orders  of  the  Emperor,  that  the  government  of  his  Majesty  does 
not  intend  to  undertake  by  the  said  convention  any  engagements  of  a  nature 
to  implicate  it,  directly  or  indirectly,  in  the  internal  conflict  now  existing  in 
the  United  States.” 

My  despatch  of  the  ltth  day  of  August  last,  No.  41,  which  you  must  have 
received  some  time  ago,  will  already  have  prepared  you  to  expect  my  ap¬ 
proval  of  the  decision  to  wait  for  specific  instructions  in  this  new  emergency 
at  which  you  have  arrived. 

The  obscurity  of  the  text  of  the  declaration  which  Mr.  Thouvenel  submits 
to  us  is  sufficiently  relieved  by  his  verbal  explanations.  According  to  your 
renort  of  the  conversation,  before  referred  to,  he  said  that  both  France  and 
Great  Britain  had  already  announced  that  they  would  take  no  part  in  our 
domestic  controversy,  and  they  thought  that  a  frank  and  open  declaration 
in  advance  of  the  execution  of  the  projected  convention  might  save  difficulty 
and  misconception  hereafter.  He  further  said,  in  the  way  of  specification, 
that  the  provisions  of  the  convention  standing  alone  might  bind  England 
and  France  to  pursue  and  punish  the  privateers  of  the  south  as  pirates;  that 
they  are  unwilling  to  do  this  and  had  so  declared.  He  said,  also,  that  we 
could  deal  with  these  people  as  we  choose,  and  they  (England  and  France) 
could  only  express  their  regrets  on  the  score  of  humanity  if  we  should  deal 
with  them  as  pirates,  but  that  they  could  not  participate  in  such  a  course. 
He  added,  that  although  botli  England  and  France  are  anxious  to  have  the 
adhesion  of  the  United  States  to  the  declaration  of  Paris,  yet  that  they 
would  rather  dispense  with  it  altogether  than  be  drawn  into  our  domestic 
controversy.  He  insisted  somewhat  pointedly  that  we  could  take  no  just 
exception  to  this  outside  declaration,  to  be  made  simultaneously  with  the 
execution  of  the  convention,  unless  we  intended  that  they  (England  and 
France)  shall  be  made  parties  to  our  controversy,  and  that  the  very  fact  of 
your  hesitation  was  an  additional  reason  why  they  should  insist  upon  making 
such  contemporaneous  declaration  as  they  proposed. 

These  remarks  of  Mr.  Thouven.el  are  certainly  distinguished  by  entire 
frankness.  It  shall  be  my  effort  to  reply  to  them  with  moderation  and 
candor. 


234 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


In  1856,  France,  Great  Britain,  Kussia,  Prussia,  Sardinia  and  Turkey, 
being  assembled  in  congress  at  Paris,  with  a  view  to  modify  the  law  of 
nations  so  as  to  meliorate  the  evils  of  maritime  war,  adopted  and  set  forth 
a  declaration,  which  is  in  the  following  words: 

1st.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

2d.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

3d.  Neutral  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not 
liable  to  capture  under  enemy’s  flag. 

4th.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective — that  is  to  say, 
maintained  by  forces  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the 
enemy. 

The  States  which  constituted  the  congress  mutually  agreed  to  submit 
the  declaration  to  all  other  nations  and  invite  them  to  accede  to  it.  It  was 
to  be  submitted  as  no  special  or  narrow  treaty  between  particular  States 
for  limited  periods  or  special  purposes  of  advantage,  or  under  peculiar 
circumstances;  but,  on  the  contrary,  its  several  articles  were,  by  voluntary 
acceptance  of  maritime  powers,  to  constitute  a  new  chapter  in  the  law  of 
nations,  and  each  one  of  the  articles  was  to  be  universal  and  eternal  in  its 
application  and  obligation.  France  especially  invited  the  United  States  to 
accede  to  these  articles.  An  invitation  was  equally  tendered  to  all  other 
civilized  nations,  and  the  articles  have  been  already  adopted  by  forty-one  of 
the  powers  thus  invited.  The  United  States  hesitated,  but  only  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  making  an  effort  to  induce  the  other  parties  to  enlarge  the  beneficent 
scope  of  the  declaration  Having  failed  in  that  effort,  they  now,  after  a 
delay  not  unusual  in  such  great  international  discussions,  offer  their  adhe¬ 
sion  to  that  declaration,  pure  and  simple,  in  the  form,  words  and  manner  in 
which  it  was  originally  adopted  and  accepted  by  all  of  the  forty-six  nations 
which  have  become  parties  to  it.  France  declines  to  receive  that  adhesion 
unless  she  be  allowed  to  make  a  special  declaration,  which  would  constitute 
an  additional  and  qualifying  article,  limiting  the  obligations  of  France  to  the 
United  States  to  a  narrower  range  than  the  obligations  which  the  United 
States  must  assume  towards  France  and  towards  every  other  one  of  the 
forty-six  sovereigns  who  are  parties  to  it,  and  narrower  than  the  mutual 
obligations  of  all  those  parties,  including  France  herself. 

If  we  should  accede  to  that  condition,  it  manifestly  would  not  be  the 
declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  to  which  we  would  be  adhering,  but  a 
different  and  special  and  peculiar  treaty  between  France  and  the  United 
States  only.  Even  as  such  a  treaty  it  would  be  unequal.  Assuming  that 
Mr.  Thouvenel’s  reasoning  is  correct,  we  should  in  that  case  be  contracting 
an  obligation,  directly  or  indirectly,  to  implicate  ourselves  in  any  internal 
conflict  that  may  now  be  existing  or  that  may  hereafter  occur  in  France, 
while  she  would  be  distinctly  excused  by  us  from  any  similar  duty  towards 
the  United  States. 

I  know  that  France  is  a  friend,  and  means  to  be  just  and  equal  towards 
the  United  States.  I  must  assume,  therefore,  that  she  means  not  to  make 
an  exceptional  arrangement  with  us,  but  to  carry  out  the  same  arrangement 
in  her  interpretation  of  the  obligations  of  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of 
Paris  in  regard  to  other  powers.  Thus  carried  out,  the  declaration  of  Paris 
would  be  expounded  so  as  to  exclude  all  internal  conflicts  in  States  from  the 
application  of  the  articles  of  that  celebrated  declaration.  Most  of  the  wars  of 
modern  times — perhaps  of  all  times — have  been  insurrectionary  wars, or  “inter¬ 
nal  conflicts.”  If  the  position  now  assumed  by  France  should  thus  be  taken 
by  all  the  other  parties  to  the  declaration,  then  it  would  follow  that  the  first 
article  of  that  instrument,  instead  of  being,  in  fact,  an  universal  and  effect¬ 
ual  inhibition  of  the  practice  of  privateering,  "would  abrogate  it  only  in  wars 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


235 


between  foreign  nations,  while  it  would  enjoy  universal  toleration  in  civil 
and  social  wars.  With  great  deference,  I  cannot  but  think  that,  thus  modi¬ 
fied,  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  would  lose  much  of  the  rever¬ 
ence  which  it  has  hitherto  received  from  Christian  nations.  If  it  were 
proper  for  me  to  pursue  the  argument  further,  I  might  add  that  sedition, 
insurrection  and  treason  would  find  in  such  a  new  reading  of  the  declaration 
of  Paris  encouragement  which  would  tend  to  render  the  most  stable  and 
even  the  most  beneficent  systems  of  government  insecure.  Nor  do  I  know 
on  what  grounds  it  can  be  contended  that  practices  more  destructive  to 
property  and  life  ought  to  be  tolerated  in  civil  or  fratricidal  wars  than  are 
allowed  in  wars  between  independent  nations. 

I  cannot,  indeed,  admit  that  the  engagement  which  France  is  required  to 
make  without  the  qualifying  declaration  in  question  would,  directly  or  in¬ 
directly,  implicate  her  in  our  internal  conflicts.  But  if  such  should  be  its 
effect,  I  must,  in  the  first  place,  disclaim  any  desire  for  such  an  intervention 
on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  The  whole  of  this  long  correspondence 
has  had  for  one  of  its  objects  the  purpose  of  averting  any  such  interven¬ 
tion.  If,  however,  such  an  intervention  would  be  the  result  of  the  unquali¬ 
fied  execution  of  the  convention  by  France,  then  the  fault  clearly  must  be 
inherent  in  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  itself,  and  it  is  not  a 
result  of  anything  that  the  United  States  have  done  or  proposed. 

Two  motives  induced  them  to  tender  their  adhesion  to  that  declaration — 
first,  a  sincere  desire  to  co-operate  with  other  progressive  nations  in  the 
melioration  of  the  rigors  of  maritime  war;  second,  a  desire  to  relieve  France 
from  any  apprehension  of  danger  to  the  lives  or  property  of  her  people  from 
violence  to  occur  in  the  course  of  the  civil  conflict  in  which  we  are  engaged, 
by  giving  her,  unasked,  all  the  guarantees  in  that  respect  which  are  con¬ 
tained  in  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris.  The  latter  of  these  two 
motives  is  now  put  to  rest,  insomuch  as  France  declines  the  guarantees  we 
offer.  Doubtlessly,  she  is  satisfied  that  they  are  unnecessary.  We  have 
always  practiced  on  the  principles  of  the  declaration.  We  did  so  long  be¬ 
fore  they  were  adopted  by  the  congress  of  Paris,  so  far  as  the  rights  of 
neutrals  or  friendly  States  are  concerned.  While  our  relations  with  France 
remain  as  they  now  are  we  shall  continue  the  same  practice  none  the  less 
faithfully  than  if  bound  to  do  so  by  a  solemn  convention. 

The  other  and  higher  motive  will  remain  unsatisfied,  and  it  will  lose  none 
of  its  force.  We  shall  be  ready  to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  Paris  with 
every  power  that  will  agree  to  adopt  its  principles  for  the  government  of 
its  relations  to  us,  and  which  shall  be  content  to  accept  our  adhesion  on  the 
same  basis  upon  which  all  the  other  parties  to  it  have  acceded. 

We  know  that  France  has  a  high  and  generous  ambition.  We  shall  wait 
for  her  to  accept  hereafter  that  co-operation  on  our  part  in  a  great  reform 
which  she  now  declines.  We  shall  not  doubt  that  when  the  present  embar¬ 
rassment  which  causes  her  to  decline  this  co-operation  shall  have  been  re¬ 
moved,  as  it  soon  will  be,  she  will  then  agree  with  us  to  go  still  further, 
and  abolish  the  confiscation  of  property  of  non-belligerent  citizens  and  sub¬ 
jects  in  maritime  war. 

You  will  inform  Mr.  Thouvenel  that  the  proposed  declaration  on  the  part 
of  the  Emperor  is  deemed  inadmissible  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States;  and  if  it  shall  be  still  insisted  upon,  you  will  then  inform  him  that 
you  are  instructed  for  the  present  to  desist  from  further  negotiation  on  the 
subject  involved. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

.  ‘  WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Wm.  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.}  &c.}  &c. 


236 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


Paris,  September  10,  1861. 

gIR:  ******** 

I  herewith  enclose  to  you  a  copy  and  translation  of  a  communication 
recently  received  by  me  from  Mr.  Thouvenel  on  the  subject  of  the  execution 
of  the  convention  as  to  maritime  rights.  It  contains  nothing  that  I  have 
not  referred  to  before,  but  it  is  evident  he  wanted  to  put  the  specific  grounds 
of  exception  to  an  unconditional  exception  of  the  treaty  on  record. 

^  vL.  »J/  vjy  vl. 

^ 


With  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

His  Excellency  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 


Mr.  Thouvenel  to  Mr.  Dayton. 
[Translation  ] 


Paris,  September  9,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  received  the  letter  which  you  did  me  the  honor  to  write  me, 
the  26th  of  the  month  of  August,  in  order  to  explain  to  me  the  reasons 
which  induced  you  to  await  further  instructions  from  your  government 
before  proceeding  to  the  signing  of  the  convention  relative  to  maritime 
rights. 

In  this  state  of  affairs,  I  could  but  await  the  arrival  of  the  instructions 
which  you  have  requested,  and,  consequently,  I  do  not  wish  to  enter  into  the 
discussion  of  the  motives  which  have  prevented  you  from  signing  the  con¬ 
templated  convention,  and  which  }tou  were  pleased  to  bring  to  my  knowl¬ 
edge.  I  desire,  however,  to  set  forth  clearly,  by  some  further  explanations, 
what  is  the  train  of  thought  followed  by  the  government  of  the  Emperor,  in 
judging,  like  the  government  of  her  Britannic  Majesty,  that  it  is  expedient 
to  accompany  the  proposed  treaty  with  a  special  declaration. 

If  the  United  States,  before  the  actual  crisis,  had  adhered  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  as  this  adhesion  would  have  bound  the  whole 
confederation  from  that  moment,  the  cabinet  of  Washington  might,  at  the 
present  time,  have  availed  itself  of  it  to  contest  the  right  of  the  southern 
States  to  arm  privateers.  Now,  if  this  supposition  be  correct,  (fondee,) 
one  could  not  be  astonished  that  the  government  of  Mr.  President  Lincoln, 
according  to  the  principles  which  it  has  set  forth  in  its  manner  of  viewing 
the  present  conflict,  should  wish  to  consider  the  contemplated  convention 
as  much  obligatory  upon  seceded  States,  in  the  present  circumstances,  as  if 
it  had  preceded  the  hostilities.  But  if  this  opinion  be  quite  explicable  on 
the  part  of  the  cabinet  of  Washington  in  the  situation  in  which  events  have 
placed  it,  it  could  not  be  thus  with  governments  which  have  proposed  to 
themselves  to  preserve  the  strictest  neutrality  in  a  struggle,  the  gravity  of 
which  it  has  no  longer  been  possible  for  them  to  disregard.  In  accepting, 
then,  a  proposition  presented  (formulae)  by  the  federal  government,  when 
the  war  had  already  unhappily  broken  out  between  the  northern  and  south¬ 
ern  States  of  the  Union,  it  was  natural  that  the  government  of  the  Emperor, 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


237 


having  decided  not  to  turn  itself  aside  from  the  attitude  of  reserve  which  it 
had  imposed  upon  itself,  should  consider  beforehand  what  extension  the  cabi¬ 
net  of  Washington  might  be  induced,  on  account  of  its  position,  to  give  to  an 
arrangement,  by  which  it  declared  that  the  United  States  renounced  priva¬ 
teering.  The  hostilities,  in  which  the  federal  government  is  actually  en¬ 
gaged,  offering  to  it  the  opportunity  of  putting  immediately  into  practice 
the  abandonment  of  this  mode  of  warfare;  and  its  intention,  officially  an¬ 
nounced,  being  to  treat  the  privateers  of  the  south  as  pirates,  it  was  mani¬ 
festly  of  importance  to  caution  the  cabinet  of  Washington  against  the  con¬ 
viction,  where  it  might  exist,  that  the  contemplated  treaty  obliged  us  thus  to 
consider  the  privateers  of  the  south  as  pirates.  I  will  not  dwell  upon  the 
matter  (n?  insisterai  pas)  in  order  to  show  how  much  we  would  deviate 
from  the  neutrality  we  have  declared  ourselves  desirous  of  observing  to¬ 
wards  the  two  factions  of  the  Union,  if,  after  having  announced  that  they 
would  constitute  for  us  two  ordinary  belligerents,  we  should  contest  the 
primitive  rights  of  a  belligerent  to  one  of  them,  because  the  other  should 
consent  voluntarily  to  the  abandonment  of  it  in  a  treaty  concluded  with  us. 
There  is  no  need  to  point  out,  further,  how  we  would  forcibly  break  through 
our  neutrality  as  soon  as  we  should  be  constrained,  in  virtue  of  the  contem¬ 
plated  convention,  to  treat  as  pirates  the  privateers  which  the  south  will 
persist  in  arming.  The  cabinet  of  Washington  might,  then,  I  repeat,  be  led, 
by  the  particular  point  of  view  in  which  it  is  placed,  to  draw  from  the  act 
which  we  are  ready  to  conclude  such  consequences  as  we  should  now  abso¬ 
lutely  reject.  It  has  seemed  to  us  that  it  is  equally  important  to  the  two 
governments  to  anticipate  (prevenir  a  Favance)  all  difference  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  as  regards  the  application  to  the  actual  circumstances  of  the  princi¬ 
ples  which  were  to  become  common  to  them  both.  Otherwise,  it  would 
have  been  to  be  feared,  if  the  same  explanations  had  had  to  be  exchanged 
later,  that  there  would  have  been  attributed  to  them  a  character  altogether 
different  from  that  which  they  really  possess.  We  wTould  regret,  too,  sin¬ 
cerely  that  the  least  misunderstanding  should  be  produced  in  our  relations 
with  the  United  States,  not  to  be  anxious,  from  this  moment  henceforth,  to 
enlighten  them  upon  a  reserve,  which,  being  officially  stated  to  the  cabinet 
of  Washington  before  the  signing  of  the  convention,  maintains  strictly  one 
line  of  neutrality,  without  taking  away  from  the  value  of  the  agreement, 
which,  in  this  case,  we  will  be  happy  to  establish  with  the  United  States. 

Accept  the  assurances  of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  be,  sir,  your  very  humble  and  very  obedient  servant, 

THOUVENEL. 

Mr.  Dayton, 

Minister  of  the  United  States  at  Paris. 


Air.  Seward  to  Air.  Dayton. 

No.  59.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  23,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  29th  of  August  (No.  37)  was  duly  received. 
The  proceedings  it  relates  had,  however,  been  anticipated,  and  it  only 
remains  to  be  said  in  regard  to  them,  that  your  conduct  therein  is  fully 
approved 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 


William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c .,  &c . 


238 


COKKESPOXDEXCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  66.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  October  10,  1861. 

Sir:  Some  unaccounted  for  obstruction  of  the  mails  has  caused  a  delay  in 
the  receipt  of  your  despatch  of  the  7th  of  September  (No.  44)  until  this  time. 

As  I  expected,  you  very  properly  anticipated  my  instructions  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  conditional  execution  of  the  treaty  proposed  by  Mr.  Thouvenel, 
and  your  proceedings  in  that  respect  are  entirely  approved. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c .,  &c. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  59.]  Paris,  October  14,  1861. 

Sir  :  After  a  careful  examination  of  your  despatch  (No.  36)  in  reference  to 
an  accession  by  the  United  States  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris, 
I  have  thought  it  best  to  submit  a  copy  of  the  same  to  Mr.  Thouvenel,  to  be 
read. 

As  your  despatch  recapitulates  the  points  made  by  Mr.  Thouvenel  in  the 
conversation  with  me  and  reported  by  me  to  the  government,  it  was  perhaps 
due  to  him  that  he  should  see  if  he  has  been  correctly  reported.  Upon  one 
side,  it  was  equally  important  that,  in  a  matter  of  so  much  interest,  the  view 
taken  b}7  our  government  should  not  be  misstated  nor  misunderstood.  It 
seems  to  me  now  that  the  case  stands,  upon  the  whole  correspondence,  as 
well  for  the  government  of  the  United  States  as  could  be  desired. 

With  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  71.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  October  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  30  (No.  54)  has  been  duly  received. 
Your  vigilance  in  communicating  to  me  Mr.  Brown’s  comments  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  confiscation  is  approved.  You  will  have  learned,  however,  from  the 
press,  before  this  paper  shall  reach  you,  that  the  crises  he  apprehended  were 
unreal. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.}  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  72.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  30  (No.  55)  has  been  received.  I 
thank  you  for  your  diligence  in  transmitting  the  papers  concerning  our 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


239 


blockade,  which  it  contains.  The  blockade  is  already  very  effective,  quite 
as  much  so  as  any  nation  ever  established.  Proceeding’s  are  now  on  foot 
which  will  remove  the  premature  objections  of  the  French  consul  to  which 
you  allude. 

I  am  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Wn.  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  69.]  Paris,  October  22,  1861. 

Sir:  AY>u  will  recollect  that  in  despatch  No.  59  I  informed  you  that  I  had 
thought  it  proper,  under  all  the  circumstances,  to  submit  a  copy  of  your  last 
despatch,  No.  56,  in  reference  to  the  projected  treaty,  &c.,  to  Mr  Thouvenel, 
to  be  read  and  returned.  Herewith  I  send  you  a  translation  of  his  note, 
acknowledging  the  reception  of  the  copy  of  your  despatch,  and  returning 
the  same.  He  makes  no  comment  on  your  despatch,  and  his  note  is  of  no 
importance  except  that  you  may  have  in  your  department  the  entire  corres¬ 
pondence  upon  this  important  subject. 

Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  L.  DA1W0N. 

His  Excellency  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  &c.r  &c. 


[Translation.] 

Paris,  October  18,  1861. 

Sir:  You  have  been  pleased  to  transmit  to  me,  the  14th  of  this  month,  a 
copy  of  a  despatch  in  which  Mr.  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the  Union  sets 
forth  the  motives  which  do  not  permit  the  cabinet  at  Washington  to  accept, 
in  signing  a  convention  of  adhesion  to  the  principles  of  maritime  right  pro¬ 
claimed  by  the  Congress  of  Paris,  the  declaration  of  which  I  had  sent  you 
the  rough  draft. 

I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  this  communication,  in 
returning  to  you,  according  to  your  desire,  the  despatch  with  which  you 
have  made  me  acquainted. 

Accept  the  assurances  of  the  high  consideration  with  which  I  have  the 
honor  to  be,  sir,  your  very  humble  and  very  obedient  servant, 

THOUVENEL. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  80.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  7,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatch  of 
October  22,  (No  69,)  which  is  accompanied  by  a  note  from  Mr.  Thouvenel  on 
the  subject  of  my  despatch  to  you,  No.  56. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.}  &c. 


240 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


.  Mr.  Dayton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  75.]  Paris,  November  7,  1861. 

Sir:  I  acknowledge  the  receipt  this  morning  of  despatches  Nos.  68,  69,  70, 
71,  and  72.  Their  contents  relate  principally  to  the  reception  of  sundry 
despatches  from  me,  with  brief  answers,  for  which  I  am  much  obliged.  1 
asked  any  information  that  it  might  be  proper  to  give  as  to  the  future  course 
of  events  in  the  United  States,  (beyond  what  is  found  in  the  newspapers,) 
not  from  curiosity,  merely,  but  because  I  am  sometimes  questioned  here  by 
parties  in  the  government,  and  fear  that  I  indicate  an  unwarrantable  ignorance, 
for  I  am  constrained  to  say  that  I  know  nothing  beyond  what  is  common  to 
all  the  world;  while  the  government  and  diplomats  here  take  it  for  granted 
that  I  ought  to  know  a  great  deal  more. 

Your  despatch  (No.  68)  informs  me  of  Mr.  Adams’s  communication  of  an 
intended  counter-proposition  to  be  made  by  England  and  Fiance  to  our  gov¬ 
ernment  in  respect  to  Mexican  affairs.  Of  this  I  had  heard  before,  and  it 
made  me  less  anxious  as  to  the  question  here;  for  the  fact  that  a  counter- 
proposition  was  to  be  made  and  answered  would,  of  necessity,  as  I  thought, 
occupy  time  and  give  the  United  States  a  chance  for  reflection,  and  perhaps 
action.  The  prompt  consummation  of  this  matter  in  London  has  rather 
taken  me  by  surprise.  I  fear  that  some  misunderstanding  of  each  other’s 
meaning  may  have  occurred  upon  the  part  of  Mr.  Adams  and  Earl  Russell, 
or  one  of  them.  At  all  events  a  point  has  been  reached  at  a  much  earlier 
day  than  an  intimation  of  such  intended  proposition  led  me  to  anticipate. 

I  am,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  L.  DAYTON. 

His  Excellency  William  H.  Seward,  fyc.,  fyc.,  §c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dayton. 

No.  84.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  23,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  November  7  (No  75)  has  been  received. 

I  have  regretted  quite  as  much  as  you  have  my  inability  at  this  moment 
to  give  advices  to  you  and  each  other  of  our  representatives  abroad  of  the 
course  of  events  occurring  at  home,  and  of  the  general  drift  of  our  cor¬ 
respondence  with  other  nations;  but  this  domestic  commotion  has  ripened 
into  a  transaction  so  vast  as  to  increase  more  than  fourfold  the  labors  of 
administration  in  every  department.  You  can  readily  imagine  how  vast  a 
machinery  has  been  created  in  the  War  Department,  in  the  Navy  Deparment, 
and  in  the  Treasury  Department,  respectively.  The  head  of  each  is  a  man  of 
busy  occupations,  high  responsibilities,  and  perplexing  cares.  You  would 
hardly  suppose  that  a  similar  change  has  come  over  the  modest  little  State 
Department  of  other  and  peaceful  days;  but  the  exactions  upon  it  are  infinite, 
and  out  of  all  that  offers  itself  to  be  done,  I  can  only  select  and  do  that  which 
cannot  be  wisely  or  safely  left  undone. 

Thus  far  we  have  no  official  notice  from  Europe  of  the  proceedings  there 
in  regard  to  Mexico. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

William  L.  Dayton,  Esq.,  Sp.,  fyc.,  §c. 


SPAIN. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

[Extract.] 


No.  2.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  27,  1861. 

Sir:  You  receive  the  President’s  instructions  for  the  discharge  of  your 
very  important  mission  at  a  moment  when  a  domestic  crisis,  long  appre¬ 
hended  with  deep  solicitude,  is  actually  reached.  For  the  first  time  since 
the  foundations  of  this  federal  republic  were  laid  with  such  pious  care  and 
consummate  wisdom,  an  insurrection  has  developed  itself,  and  assumed  the 
organization  and  attitude  of  a  separate  political  power.  This  organization 
consists  of  several  members  of  this  Union,  under  the  name  of  “  The  Confederate 
States  of  America.”  That  irregular  and  usurping  authority  has  instituted 
civil  war.  The  President  of  the  United  States  has  adopted  defensive  and  re¬ 
pressive  measures,  including  the  employment  of  federal  forces  by  land  and 
by  sea,  with  the  establishment  of  a  maritime  blockade.  The  revolutionists 
have  opposed  to  these  inevitable  measures  an  army  of  invasion  directed 
against  this  capital,  and  a  force  of  privateers  incited  to  prey  upon  the 
national  commerce,  and  ultimately,  no  doubt,  the  commerce  of  the  world. 
It  seems  the  necessity  of  faction  in  every  country  that  whenever  it  acquires 
sufficient  boldness  to  inaugurate  revolution,  it  then  alike  forgets  the  coun¬ 
sels  of  prudence  and  stifles  the  instincts  of  patriotism,  and  becomes  a  suitor 
to  foreign  courts  for  aid  and  assistance  to  subvert  and  destroy  the  most 
cherished  and  indispensable  institutions  of  its  own.  So  it  has  already  hap¬ 
pened  in  this  case  that  the  revolutionary  power  has,  as  it  is  understood, 
despatched  agents  to  Europe  to  solicit  from  the  States  of  that  continent  at 
least  their  acknowledgment  of  its  asserted  sovereignty  and  independence. 
To  oppose  this  application  and  prevent  its  success  will  be  your  chief  dut}% 
and  no  more  important  one  was  ever  devolved  by  the  United  States  upon 
any  representative  whom  they  have  sent  abroad. 

There  would,  indeed,  be  no  danger  of  the  success  of  the  unpatriotic  appli¬ 
cation  if  the  governments  addressed  could  be  relied  upon  to  understand 
their  true  interests,  and  fulfil  the  obligations  of  national  justice  and  frater¬ 
nity.  But  unhappily  in  the  present  condition  of  society  nations  are,  to  say 
the  least,  neither  wiser  nor  more  just  or  generous  than  individual  men. 

You  will  take  care  that  you  do  not  yourself  misunderstand  the  spirit  in 
which  your  duty  is  to  be  performed,  nor  suffer  that  spirit  to  be  misappre¬ 
hended  by  the  government  of  her  Catholic  Majesty.  The  government  of  the 
United  States,  in  the  first  place,  indulges  no  profound  apprehensions  for  its 
safety,  even  although  the  government  to  which  you  are  accredited,  and 
even  many  others  of  the  European  continent,  should  intervene  in  this  un¬ 
happy  civil  war.  The  union  of  these  States,  with  the  maintenance  of 
their  republican  institutions,  is  guaranteed  by  material,  moral,  and  social 
necessities  of  this  continent  and  mankind,  that  will,  the  President  feels  as¬ 
sured,  overbear  all  aggression  that  shall  be  committed  upon  them,  no  mat¬ 
ter  how  various  its  forms  or  how  comprehensive  its  combinations.  The  trial 
involves  only  the  questions  how  long  shall  the  struggle  be  protracted,  and 

16 


242 


CORRESPONDENCE 


what  shall  be  the  measure  of  the  disasters  and  calamities  it  shall  inflict. 
Secondly.  The  government  neither  expects  nor  asks,  nor  would  it  consent 
to  receive,  aid  or  favor  from  Spain  or  an}7  other  foreign  state.  It  asks  only 
that  such  states  perform  their  treaty  obligations,  and  leave  this  domestic 
controversy  to  the  care  and  conduct  of  those  to  whom  it  exclusively  belongs. 
Whenever  this  republic  shall  have  come  to  need  the  protection  or  favor  of 
any  other  nation,  it  will  have  become  unable  and  unworthy  to  exist,  how¬ 
ever  aided  from  abroad. 

The  President,  in  the  absence  of  all  information,  is  left  to  conjecture  what 
are  the  influences  upon  which  the  so-called  Confederate  States  rely  to  induce 
her  Catholic  Majesty’s  government  to  grant  their  disloyal  application.  The 
high  consideration  which  he  entertains  for  her  Majesty  enables  him  to  assume 
that  the  appeal  taken  from  this  government  to  her  royal  favor,  proceeds,  in 
part  at  least,  on  the  ground  that  the  revolutionists  affect  to  have  suffered 
oppression  and  wrong  at  the  hands  of  the  government  of  the  United  States, 
which  entitle  them  to  the  sympathy  of  the  Queen  of  Spain,  if  not  to  redress 
through  her  intervention.  Her  Catholic  Majesty’s  government  has  not  been 
addicted  to  such  intervention  hitherto,  and  the  wisdom  of  its  forbearance  is 
seen  in  the  revival  of  the  energies  of  that  great  and  honored  nation,  which 
now  seems  renewing  a  felicitous  career. 

The  President,  however,  will  not  rely  merely  on  the  forbearance  of  any 
foreign  power,  not  even  on  that  of  the  government  of  Spain. 

That  government  well  understands  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
and  has  had  opportunity  to  learn  its  practical  operation  It  therefore  knows 
that  the  several  States  which  constitute  the  federal  Union  can  respectively 
practice  tyranny  or  oppression  upon  individual  citizens,  and  may  even  hinder 
and  embarrass  the  general  government,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  that  gov¬ 
ernment,  being  armed  with  only  a  few  though  very  important  powers  need¬ 
ful  for  preserving  domestic  peace,  and  defence  against  foreign  nations,  can 
neither  oppress  nor  impoverish  nor  annoy  any  member  of  the  Union  or  any 
private  citizen. 

In  the  present  case  there  are  some  points  which  will  not  escape  consider¬ 
ation,  namely  : 

1st.  The  very  interest  which  now  resorts  to  insurrection,  practically  speak¬ 
ing,  has  directed  the  administration  of  the  federal  government  from  the  hour 
when  the  first  murmur  of  discontent  was  heard  until  now  when  it  raises  the 
flag  of  disunion. 

2d.  The  federal  government,  now  seventy  years  old,  has  never  made  a 
foreign  war  which  that  same  interest,  now  so  insurrectionary,  did  not  urge 
or  demand  ;  has  never  extended  its  dominion  a  square  mile  bv  discovery, 
conquest,  or  purchase  except  at  the  instance  of  the  same  party;  has  never 
exacted  an  irregular  contribution,  or  levied  an  illegal  or  unequal  tax,  and 
only  in  war  has  imposed  a  direct  tax.  It  has  divided  civil,  military,  and 
naval  honors  and  trusts  between  all  classes  and  sections,  if  not  impartially, 
at  least  with  preference  of  the  same  interest.  It  has  constructed  all  the 
defences  required  for  the  section  where  that  interest  prevails,  and  for  forty 
years  has  accommodated  that  interest  with  special  legislation  and  beneficial 
arrangements  with  foreign  powers.  The  administration  of  the  government 
has  been  so  just  and  so  tolerant  that  no  citizen  of  any  one  of  the  States 
claiming  to  be  aggrieved  has  ever  been  deprived  by  it  of  his  liberty,  except 
on  conviction  of  crime  by  his  peers  of  the  vicinage,  nor  of  his  property  with¬ 
out  due  compensation,  nor  forfeited  his  life  under  its  authority  except  as  a 
\  olunteer  in  the  battles  of  his  country.  I  will  not  pursue  the  subject.  It  is 
■enough  to  show  that  while  this  government  will  submit  its  action  in  domes¬ 
tic  affairs  to  the  judgment  of  no  other  nation,  it  does  not  fear  to  encounter 
the  moral  opinion  of  mankind. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


243 


Will  the  disunionists  claim  that  they  are  the  discoverers  of  a  new  and 
beneficent  system  of  political  government,  which  commends  itself  to  the 
patronage  of  her  Catholic  Majesty?  What  are  the  salient  principles  of  their 
system  ?  First,  government  shall  employ  no  standing  military  force  in  con¬ 
ducting  administration  of  its  domestic  concerns,  but  shall  alwavs  be  consti- 
tuted  by  popular  suffrage,  and  be  dependent  upon  it.  But  it  shall,  at  the 
same  time,  be  the  right  of  the  minority,  when  overruled  in  the  elections,  to 
resort  to  insurrection,  not  merely  to  reverse  the  popular  decree,  but  even  to 
overthrow  the  government  itself,  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  government 
can  never  lawfully  use  force  to  coerce  compliance  with  its  laws. 

2d.  The  several  states,  districts,  intendencies,  or  provinces  which  constitute 
a  nation,  must  be  brought  and  held  together  not  in  any  case  by  conquest  or 
force,  but  by  voluntary  federation,  which  may  be  stipulated  to  be  perpetual. 
But  each  constituent  state,  district,  intendency,  or  province  retains  an  inhe¬ 
rent  and  absolute  sovereignty,  and  its  people  may  rightfully  withdraw  from 
the  federal  Union  at  pleasure,  equally  in  war  as  in  peace,  leaving  its  com¬ 
mon  debts  unpaid,  its  common  treaties  unfulfilled,  its  common  defence  frus¬ 
trated.  Moreover,  the  seceding  party  may  seize  all  the  federal  treasures, 
defences,  institutions,  and  property  found  within  its  own  limits,  and  convert 
them  to  its  own  use,  simply  offering  to  come  at  its  own  future  pleasure  to 
an  equitable  account.  It  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  the  kingdom  of  Spain 
could  be  dissolved  by  her  Catholic  Majesty’s  acceptance  of  this  new  system 
much  more  rapidly  than  by  waiting  the  slow  effect  of  foreign  wars  or  do¬ 
mestic  mal-administration.  Castile,  and  Old  Castile,  Leon,  Andalusia  and 
Aragon,  Cuba  and  the  Philippine  Islands,  would  be  much  more  easily  sepa¬ 
rated  on  this  plan  than  New  York  and  Louisiana,  California  and  Massachu¬ 
setts,  Florida  and  Michigan. 

Perhaps  the  so-called  Confederate  States  will  rest  their  appeal  on  some 
especial  ground  of  sympathy  with  Spain  and  the  states  of  Spanish  America. 

In  such  a  case  you  will  need  only  to  say  that  the  moderation  which  has 
thus  far  been  practiced  by  the  United  States  towards  Spain,  and  the  Spanish 
American  states  once  her  colonies,  has  been  due  chiefly  to  the  fact  that  the 
several  North  American  states  of  British  derivation,  exclusive  of  Canada, 
have  been  bound  together  in  a  federal  Union,  and  the  continuance  of  that 
Union  is  the  only  guarantee  for  the  practice  of  the  same  moderation  hereafter. 

Will  the  so-called  Confederate  States  promise  liberal  or  reciprocal  com¬ 
merce  with  Spain  or  her  provinces?  What  commerce  can  there  be  between 
states  whose  staples  are  substantially  identical  ?  Sugar  cannot  be  ex¬ 
changed  for  sugar,  cotton  for  cotton,  or  rice  for  rice.  The  United  States  have 
always  been  willing,  and  undoubtedly  they  always  will  remain  willing,  to 
establish  commerce  with  Spain  and  her.  provinces  on  terms  as  mutually  re¬ 
ciprocal  as  the  government  of  that  country  itself  will  allow. 

These  thoughts  are  presented  to  you  by  direction  of  the  President,  not  as 
exhausting  the  subject,  but  only  as  suggestions  to  your  own  vigorous  and 
comprehensive  mind,  and  he  confidently  relies  on  your  applying  all  its  pow 
ers  to  the  full  discussion  of  the  subject  if  it  shall  become  necessary. 

^ 

m  ^  <|»  'f'  'p  ^ 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  dec.,  dec.,  dec. 


244 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Preston  to  Mr.  Seivard. 


[Extract.] 


No.  41.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Aranjuez,  April  22,  1861. 

Sir  :  An  interview  has  taken  place  between  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs 
and  myself  in  reference  to  the  subject  embraced  in  your  circular. 

In  conformity  with  your  instructions,  I  presented  the  inaugural  address 
of  the  President  as  expressive  of  his  policy  towards  the  seceding  States,  and 
read  to  him  your  despatch,  saying  that  the  administration  conceived  that  the 
unhappy  differences  existing  in  America  owed  their  origin  to  popular  pas¬ 
sions  and  were  of  a  transient  character,  and  that  the  President  was  well 
assured  of  the  speedy  restoration  of  the  harmony  and  unity  of  the  govern¬ 
ment. 

The  minister  replied  with  courtesy,  expressing  pain  at  the  posture  of  affairs 
in  the  United  States,  but  said  that  her  Majesty’s  government  was  informed 
that  extensive  military  and  naval  preparations  were  making  in  the  north  to 
enforce  the  federal  supremacy  in  the  south,  and  that  the  consequences  were 
to  be  dreaded.  I  replied  that  I  felt  assured  his  information  was  erro¬ 
neous. 

No  commissioners  from  the  Confederated  States  have  yet  applied  for  the 
recognition  of  the  Southern  Confederacy,  as  I  informed  you  in  my  former 
despatch.  The  minister  has  promised  me  that  no  negotiations  for  that  pur¬ 
pose  shall  be  conducted  without  my  being  fully  informed.  This  is  as  satis¬ 
factory  an  arrangement  as  could  be  desired  under  existing  circumstances. 

^1/  Oy  vlx  vL» 

/jx  »^x  ^x 


I  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  PRESTON. 


Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  dec.,  dec.,  Washington,  I).  C. 


Mr.  Preston  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract  ] 


No.  54.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  May  25,  1861. 

PI  xl»  xL  xl»  xL  xi- 

•  'T'  'n  <TX  'T'  #TS  /T'  ''n  T 

The  proclamations  of  the  President  declaring  the  blockade  of  the  ports  of 
Virginia,  North  Carolina,  and  other  southern  States,  have  been  transmitted  to 
the  government  of  her  Catholic  Majesty  for  its  official  notification. 

No  commissioners  have  yet  arrived  in  Spain  to  apply  for  the  recognition 
of  the  southern  States  which  have  seceded  from  the  Union,  and  none  will 
probably  come  until  the  question  has  been  determined  by  the  cabinets  of 
London  or  Paris.  ******* 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

W.  PRESTOxN. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  dec.,  dec.,  Washington,  I).  C. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


245 


Mr.  Perry  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  4.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  June  13,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  May  20,  No.  1,  has  reached  me,  and  varies  the 
instructions  of  May  9. 

Please  find  annexed  copy  of  my  note  to  Mr.  Calderon,  dated  yesterday, 
which  I  placed  in  his  hands  accompanied  by  a  copy  of  your  despatch.  I 
deemed  it  proper  to  provoke  a  repetition  to  myself  of  the  assurance  given 
to  Mr.  Preston,  and  fix  it  by  a  statement  in  writing. 

On  this  subject,  of  the  recognition  by  Spain  of  the  pretended  government 
of  the  Confederate  States,  I  have  had  various  interviews  with  influential 
personages,  and  with  the  sub-secretary  and  the  first  secretary  of  state.  I  have 
represented  the  position  of  the  rebel  party  in  a  light  which  was  evidently 
new  to  them. 

Yesterday,  in  a  long  and  very  satisfactory  interview  with  Mr.  Calderon,  I 
explained  to  him  the  connexion  of  Mr.  Jefferson  Davis  and  other  leaders  in 
the  southern  rebellion  with  the  attempt  made  in  1854-55  by  the  same  parties 
to  provoke  a  war  with  Spain  for  the  conquest  of  Cuba.  He  was  made  to 
see  that  the  former  filibustering  against  Cuba  had  its  origin,  like  the  present 
rebellion  at  the  south,  in  the  political  ambition  of  our  slave  owners.  They 
then  wished  to  re-enforce  the  slave  power  in  the  Union  by  the  annexation  of 
new  slave  States,  but  having  failed  in  Cuba,  in  Nicaragua,  in  Kansas,  and 
lastly  in  the  recent  presidential  election,  they  had  at  length  io  turn  their 
arms  against  the  government  of  the  United  States,  now  passed  out  of  their 
control. 

Secession  was  filibustering  struck  in.  I  explained  that,  unhappily,  a  class 
at  the  south  called  by  the  slave  owners  “mean  whites”  were  quite  ready  to 
follow  their  lead,  and  were  a  terrible  instrument  in  their  hands.  Their  own 
ignorance,  their  dependence  upon  the  richer  class,  and  their  contact  with 
the  blacks  had  gradually  reduced  them,  intellectually  and  morally,  to  a  point 
of  which,  perhaps,  there  were  few  examples  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  race.  They 
were  as  reckless  of  danger  as  they  were  of  right,  as  ready  to  embark  for 
the  ’ever  lakes  of  Central  America  as  for  the  sugar  fields  of  Cuba,  or  the 
wilds  of  Kansas,  or  a  campaign  against  the  government  of  their  country. 

This  was  good  material  for  a  rebel  soldiery;  and  under  the  more  intelligent 
lead  of  the  slave  owners  this  revolt  was  undoubtedly  serious  and  would  cost 
blood.  But  the  result  was  not  doubtful.  The  disparity  of  force  and  resources 
on  the  part  of  the  government  was  too  overbalancing  to  leave  the  rebels  a 
chance  of  long  prolonging  the  struggle. 

Happily,  between  the  ambitious  class  of  slave  owners  and  the  so-called 
“mean  whites,”  their  instruments,  there  was  a  middle  class  in  the  south, 
more  numerous  than  the  two  together,  loyal  to  the  Union  and  the  Constitution. 
These  loyal  citizens  were  now  held  in  a  state  of  duress  by  the  violence  and 
intimidation  employed  by  the  slave  owners  and  their  instruments.  His 
excellency  would  have  noticed  that  from  the  beginning  to  this  day  the  rebels 
had  not  obtained  the  sanction  of  a  popular  vote  to  any  of  their  high  acts. 
Nevertheless  this  was  the  only  basis  of  political  right  known  in  America. 
We  had  no  king,  no  church,  no  aristocracy,  no  other  political  guarantee  or 
sanction  in  our  nation  than  the  will  of  the  people  fairly  expressed.  None  of 
the  so-called  ordinances  separating  States  from  the  Union  had  been  ratified 
by  the  people  of  those  States  themselves;  nor  had  the  pretended  new  con¬ 
federation  of  those  States,  nor  the  formation  of  a  constitution  and  government 


246 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


lor  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  nor  any  other  of  the  high  acts  pretended 
to  have  been  accomplished  in  the  name  of  the  people  of  certain  States,  ever 
received  their  sanction  or  concurrence.  The  majority  was  against  such 
proceeding's  in  the  southern  States  themselves.  The  whole  was  the  work  of 
a  party  which,  l)}'  violence,  was  imposing  its  action  upon  those  States. 

Leaving  out  of  view  the  question  whether  a  State  might  or  might  not 
secede  from  the  United  States  by  its  own  will,  really  up  to  this  time  no  such 
will  had  been  manifested.  The  pretended  acts  of  sovereignty  exercised  by 
those  States  in  fact  were  not  the  acts  of  those  States,  but  simply  the  acts  of 
a  party  which  shows  itself  a  minority  in  those  States. 

They  were  hollow,  they  lacked  the  only  sanction  which  could  give  them 
substance. 

And  the  appearance  of  a  confederate  government  set  up  by  the  faction 
operating  in  the  south  was  an  appearance  only — convenient  for  their  own 
purposes,  but  having  no  condition  entitling  it  to  the  consideration  of  foreign 
States. 

Without  the  sanction  of  the  people  it  was  a  pretence  and  no  reality.  I 
mentioned  the  example  of  the  court,  or  appearance  of  a  court,  set  up  by 
Don  Carlos  in  the  northern  provinces  of  Spain  not  many  years  since,  and 
asked  Mr.  Calderon  whether  that  was  a  government  either  de  jure  or  de 
facto  ;  and  yet  Don  Carlos  and  his  rebel  army  and  sympathizers  held  a  large 
district  for  a  considerable  period  subject  to  their  duress. 

Thus  the  appearance  set  up  in  our  southern  States  was  no  government 
either  de  jure  or  de  facto.  It  was  at  best  a  transitory  form  of  violence,  a 
phase  of  anarchy,  a  thing  which  could  endure  only  whilst  the  violence  might 
endure  which  had  produced  and  still  maintained  it.  But,  aside  from  this 
violence,  there  was  no  political  guarantee  in  Mr.  Davis,  nor  in  his  followers, 
nor  in  the  class  from  which  they  spring.  Up  to  this  time  they  had  been  un¬ 
restrained,  and  their  demonstrations  completely  unchecked,  by  any  show  of 
force  on  the  part  of  the  government;  but  now  it  had  been  found  necessary 
to  display  the  power  of  the  Union,  and  our  forces  were  preparing  by  land 
and  sea  to  quell  this  sedition  and  release  the  loyal  people  of  the  southern 
States  from  the  duress  of  this  rebel  faction. 

Much  more  was  said,  and  questions  asked  and  answered,  which  it  is 
hardlv  necessarv  to  repeat. 

The  result  of  this  interview,  I  am  happy  to  say,  may  be  regarded  by  the 
President  as  decisive  in  regard  to  Spain.  Much  had  been  done  previously, 
but  it  was  brought  to  a  termination  yesterday. 

The  minister  of  state  not  only  renewed  to  me  the  assurance  given  to  Mr. 
Preston,  but  amplified  it,  stating  absolutel}7  that  if  any  commissioners  01 
other  negotiators  should  appear  in  behalf  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States, 
the  government  would  not  see  them  nor  recognize  them  in  any  capacity; 
that  Spain  would  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  rebel  party  in  the  United 
States  in  any  sense. 

I  might  write  this  to  my  government,  and  say  besides  that  her  Majesty’s 
first  secretary  of  state  had  promised  me  that  within  a  few  days,  as  soon  as 
it  could  be  declared,  a  decree  would  be  issued  by  this  government  prohibit¬ 
ing  all  Spaniards  from  taking  service  on  either  side,  and  ordering  all  the 
subjects  of  Spain  to  maintain' complete  neutrality  in  the  contest  now  begun 
in  the  United  States;  that  she  would  prohibit  the  entrance  of  southern  pri¬ 
vateers  into  any  of  her  ports,  peninsular  and  colonial,  and  prohibit  the  fur¬ 
nishing  of  any  supplies  to  the  rebels,  whether  arms,  provisions,  coals,  ships, 
or  any  other  merchandise  which  might  aid  in  their  revolt  against  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  Union.  Armed  ships,  with  their  prizes,  would  not  be  per¬ 
mitted  to  enter  her  ports.  Spanish  subjects  would  be  forbidden  to  accept 
any  letter  of  marque  or  other  such  document,  or  serve  on  board  of  any  pri- 


CORKESPOXDEXCF. 


247 


vateer;  and  no  fitting'  oat  of  vessels  for  the  purpose  of  taking  part  in  hos¬ 
tilities  against  the  United  States  could  be  permitted,  but  impeded  with 
vigor  and  severity. 

I  have  again  seen  Mr.  Calderon  to-day,  and  he  informed  me  that,  in  pursu¬ 
ance  of  these  declarations,  he  had  just  come  from  a  council  of  ministers, 
where  he  had  been  occupied  with  this  business,  and  that  the  decree  would 
appear  in  two  or  three  days  at  most,  and  that  he  would  also  write  to  Seiior 
Tassara,  her  Majesty’s  representative  in  Washington,  to  make  you  the  same 
announcement  on  the  part  of  his  government. 

***>£***** 

With  sentiments  of  the  highest  respect,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HORATIO  J.  PERRY. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Perry  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  7.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  June  19,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  the  royal  decree,  published  by  the  official 
gazette  this  morning,  with  its  translation,  (explained  in  No.  6.) 

The  minister  of  state  has  to-day,  whilst  acknowledging  that  its  provisions 
are  in  great  part  taken  from  the  French  decree,  drawn  my  attention  to  the 
fact  that  he  has  avoided  the  use  of  the  expression  belligerents  as  far  as  pos¬ 
sible,  or  any  other  which  could  be  considered  as  prejudging  the  question  of 
right  in  any  manner. 

He  also  drew  my  attention  to  the  fact  that,  though  the  decree  proclaims 
neutrality,  it  expressly  prohibits  any  supplies  to  be  furnished  to  privateers 
in  the  Spanish  ports,  whilst  vessels-of-war  may  be  provided  and  equipped 
with  all  they  need;  and  this  provision  tells  exclusively  against  the  party 
issuing  letters  of  marque. 

The  preamble  also  is  less  objectionable  than  some  other  documents  which 
have  seen  the  light  in  Europe. 

With  the  highest  respect,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

HORATIO  J.  PERRY. 

Hon.  Wm.  II.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


[Translation.] 

MINISTRY  OF  STATE.— ROYAL  DECREE. 

Taking  into  consideration  the  relations  which  exist  between  Spain  and 
the  United  States  of  America,  and  the  desirability  that  the  reciprocal  sen¬ 
timents  of  good  intelligence  should  not  be  changed  by  reason  of  the  grave 
events  which  have  taken  place  in  that  republic,  I  have  resolved  to  maintain 
the  most  strict  neutrality  in  the  contest  begun  between  the  federal  States 
of  the  Union  and  the  States  confederated  at  the  south;  and  in  order  to  avoid 
the  damage  which  might  come  to  my  subjects  and  to  navigation,  and  to 
commerce,  from  the  want  of  clear  provisions  to  which  to  adjust  their  con¬ 
duct  in  consonance  with  my  council  of  ministers,  I  do  decree  the  following: 

Article  1.  It  is  forbidden  in  all  the  ports  of  the  monarchy  to  arm,  provide, 
or  equip  any  privateer  vessel,  whatever  may  be  the  flag  she  displays. 


248 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Art.  2.  It  is  forbidden  in  like  manner  to  the  owners,  masters,  or  captains 
of  merchant  vessels  to  accept  letters  of  marque,  or  contribute  in  any  way 
whatsoever  to  the  armanent  or  equipment  of  vessels- of-war  or  privateers. 

Art.  3.  It  is  forbidden  to  vessels-of-war  or  privateers  with  their  prizes  to 
enter  or  to  remain  for  more  than  twenty-four  hours  in  the  ports  of  the  mon¬ 
archy,  except  in  case  of  stress  of  weather.  Whenever  this  last  shall  occur, 
the  authorities  will  keep  watch  over  the  vessel  and  oblige  her  to  get  out  to 
sea  the  soonest  possible  without  permitting  her  to  take  in  any  stores  except 
the  purely  necessary  for  the  moment,  but  in  no  case  arms  nor  supplies  for 
war. 

Art.  4.  Articles  proceeding  from  prizes  shall  not  be  sold  in  the  ports  of 
the  monarchy. 

Art.  5  The  transportation  under  the  Spanish  flag  of  all  articles  of  com¬ 
merce  is  guaranteed,  except  when  they  are  directed  to  blockaded  ports.  The 
transportation  of  effects  of  war  is  forbidden,  as  well  as  the  carrying  of 
papers  or  communications  for  belligerents.  Transgressors  shall  be  respon¬ 
sible  for  their  acts,  and  shall  have  no  right  to  the  protection  of  my  govern¬ 
ment. 

Art.  6.  It  is  forbidden  to  all  Spaniards  to  enlist  in  the  belligerent  armies 
or  take  service  on  board  of  vessels-of-war  or  privateers. 

Art.  I.  My  subjects  will  abstain  from  every  act  which,  in  violation  of  the 
laws  of  the  kingdom,  can  be  considered  as  contrary  to  neutrality. 

Art.  8.  Those  who  violate  the  foregoing  provisions  shall  have  no  right  to 
the  protection  of  my  governmer+,  shall  suffer  the  consequences  of  the 
measures  which  the  belligerents  ms  y  dictate,  and  shall  be  punished  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  laws  of  Spain. 

Palace,  on  the  seventeenth  of  June,  one  thousand  eight  hundred  and 
sixty-one. 

SIGNED  WITH  THE  ROYAL  HAND. 


The  minister  of  state, 

SATURNINO  CALDERON  COLLANTES. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  22,  1861. 

Sir:  I  send  you  an  extract  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  Sanford,  our  minister  at 
Belgium. 

You  will  perceive,  at  once,  how  important  it  is  that  the  Spanish  govern¬ 
ment  shall  prevent  the  fitting  out  or  departure  of  privateers  from  its  friendly 
ports.  We  do  not  doubt  your  activity.  You  will  need  to  see  that  our  con¬ 
suls  in  Spain  are  watchful  and  active. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  fyc.,  §•?.,  fyc.,  Madrid. 


No.  13.] 


Mr.  Perry  to  Mr.  Seward. 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  July  12,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  been  prevented,  by  m}T  recent  illness  and  the  pressure  of 
affairs,  from  communicating  to  you  till  this  moment  the  import  of  various 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


249 


conversations  which  I  had  with  Mr.  Calderon  Collantes,  minister  of  state, 
previous  to  entering  the  protest  of  June  19,  upon  the  subject  of  the  com¬ 
mercial  relations  of  the  two  countries  and  the  West  Indian  colonies. 

I  confess  this  subject  has  been  a  favorite  with  me  ever  since  I  succeeded, 
in  1854,  in  inducing  the  Spanish  government  to  consent  to  negotiate  with 
me  for  the  conclusion  of  a  commercial  treaty  upon  the  liberal  and  advanta¬ 
geous  basis  of  the  eleven  articles  then  drawn  up  and  sent  to  the  State 

Department,  accompanied  with  this  offer  on  the  -  September  of  that 

year. 

On  entering  again  upon  the  discharge  of  the  duties  of  this  legation,  I 
took  an  early  opportunity,  therefore,  to  sound  the  dispositions  of  the  present 
minister  of  state  on  this  subject,  as  well  as  the  feeling  of  other  officers  and 
personages  influential  in  this  government. 

In  no  quarter  has  the  idea  of  arranging  the  commercial  intercourse  of  the 
two  countries  upon  a  more  liberal  basis  been  repelled.  The  minister  of 
state  told  me,  without  hesitation,  that  he  would  enter  with  me  upon  the 
work  of  negotiating  a  treaty  for  this  purpose  readily,  and  with  the  idea  that 
we  should  find  no  great  difficulty  in  bringing  it  to  a  successful  conclusion. 

I  mentioned,  especially,  the  subject  of  the  Cuban  flour  duties,  and  re¬ 
ceived  the  reply,  now  as  in  years  before,  that  these  would  be  yielded  by 
Spain,  and  the  Spanish  colonial  market  thrown  open  to  the  introduction  of 
our  grains  and  provisions  of  all  kinds. 

Some  compensation,  or  show  of  compensation,  to  the  Castilian  wheat- 
growers  may  be  asked  in  the  form  of  a  reduction  of  our  duties  on  the  cheap 
wines  of  Castile;  and  whilst  1  see  no  great  objection  to  such  an  arrange¬ 
ment,  I  am,  at  the  same  time,  persuaded  that  practically  it  would  amount  to 
little  in  its  effects  either  upon  our  revenue  or  upon  the  agricultural  interests 
of  Castile. 

The  motive  of  these  conversations  was  to  assure  myself,  for  your  informa¬ 
tion,  what  were  the  present  wishes  and  dispositions  of  the  Spanish  govern¬ 
ment  on  this  subject,  prior  to  that  coolness  in  our  relations  which  must 
follow  the  presentation  of  the  protest  of  June  19.  I  repeat,  I  have  found 
these  dispositions,  now  as  heretofore,  entirely  favorable  to  the  object  men¬ 
tioned,  and  I  could  have  undertaken  to  carry  a  negotiation  on  this  subject 
to  a  conclusion  satisfactory  to  you,  and  highly  advantageous  to  our  people 
interested  in  the  trade  with  the  Spanish  colonies. 

As  to  the  convention  for  the  settlement  of  claims,  which  was  signed  by 
Mr.  Preston,  the  minister  of  state  expressed  his  regret  that  it  had  not  re¬ 
ceived  the  ratification  of  the  Senate,  but  had  no  doubt  we  should  be  able  to 
arrange  it  so  as  to  avoid  the  objections  of  that  body.  Other  more  pressing 
affairs  induced  me  not  to  go  much  into  the  matter  in  the  absence  of  your 
instructions. 

But  may  I  inquire  what  objection  there  would  be  on  the  part  of  the  present 
administration,  or  of  the  Senate,  to  such  a  convention  for  this  purpose,  as  I 
had  the  honor  of  offering  to  the  acceptance  of  the  administration  of  Presi¬ 
dent  Pierce,  in  September,  1854,  a  convention  on  the  model  of  that  con¬ 
cluded  with  Great  Britain  in  February,  1853,  free  from  especial  clauses  in 
reference  to  any  particular  claim,  and  embracing  all  claims  by  citizens  or 
subjects  of  either  country  on  the  government  of  the  other,  without  designa¬ 
tion  nor  exception  of  any  ? 

Should  any  change  of  circumstances  lead  you  to  recur  to  this  subject,  it 
will  perhaps  be  useful  to  know  that  such  an  arrangement  can  be  made. 

With  the  highest  respect,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

IIORATIO  J.  PERRY. 


Hon,  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


250 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  2.] 

Sir: 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 

*  *  * 


[Extracts] 


* 

* 

* 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid ,  July  15,  1861. 

^  ^  ^ 

^  ^  ^  ^ 

>js  ^  Jjc 


Senor  Calderon  Collantes  then  asked  me  whether  the  declaration  of  neu¬ 
trality  on  the  part  of  Spain  in  regard  to  our  domestic  troubles  was  satisfac¬ 
tory  to  my  government.  I  replied  that  the  government  of  the  United  States 
asked  for  and  expected  from  foreign  powers  nothing  but  to  be  left  to  dispose 
of  our  domestic  controversy  as  it  deemed  best  As  to  the  declaration  of 
neutrality  on  the  part  of  Spain,  I  had  received  no  expression  of  opinion  from 
my  government,  and  that  I  thought  it  would  be  considered  satisfactory. 

I  then  asked  Senor  Calderon  Collantes  whether  any  application  had  been 
made  to  her  Majesty’s  government  for  the  recognition  of  the  so-called  Con¬ 
federate  States.  He  replied  that  no  such  application  had  been  made,  and 
that  to  his  knowledge  none  of  the  gentlemen  said  to  have  come  to  Europe 
for  that  purpose  had  touched  the  soil  of  Spain.  He  assured  me,  in  addition, 
that  if  anything  of  the  kind  should  occur  he  would  immediately  communi¬ 
cate  the  fact  to  this  legation. 

In  relation  to  my  presentation  to  the  Queen,  Senor  Calderon  Collantes 
said  that  it  was  uncertain  whether  her  Majesty  would  be  able  to  receive  me 
previous  to  her  departure  for  Santander,  which  was  to  take  place  on  the 
15th  instant;  but  that  he  would  bring  the  matter  before  a  meeting  of  the 
cabinet,  to  be  held  the  same  evening,  and  advise  me  in  due  time  of  their 
decision.  He  requested  me,  at  the  same  time,  to  communicate  to  him  the 
draft  of  the  speech  which  I  intended  to  deliver  at  the  reception. 

In  the  course  of  the  night  Mr.  Perry  was  advised  that  her  Majesty  would 
be  pleased  to  receive  me  the  next  day,  at  9.30  o’clock  p.  m. 

'1/  vV  xl/  x*»  xj/ 

/(X  /Jx  /fx  »Jx  /jx  ^fx  ^fx  'jx 

xl/  xl/  xU  xG  xl/  xl/  xl/  ^ 

'Jx  ^Jx  /Jx  /Jx  /Jx  /[x  /Jx  /Jx  /Jx 

At  the  appointed  hour  I  was  received  by  her  Majesty.  I  have  the  pleasure 
to  annex  a  copy  of  the  speech  I  delivered  in  presenting  my  letter  of  cre¬ 
dence,  as  well  as  her  Majesty’s  answer. 

Last  night  there  was  a  general  reception  by  the  Queen  and  the  King  con¬ 
sort  of  the  diplomatic  corps,  which  I  attended,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Perry. 
I  may  mention  that  on  both  occasions  I  was,  contrary  to  the  rules  of  court 
etiquette,  admitted  in  a  plain  citizen’s  dress,  the  shortness  of  the  time  not 
having  permitted  me  to  prepare  a  proper  court  costume. 

I  cannot  close  this  despatch  without  expressing  my  sincere  gratification 
at  the  manner  in  which  Mr.  Perry  had  prepared  for  my  reception  here,  and 
the  many  obliging  attentions  he  has  shown  me  since.  Although  my  ac¬ 
quaintance  with  him  is  of  but  three  days  standing,  yet  I  have  no  doubt  our 
official  and  social  intercourse  will  be  of  the  most  cordial  nature. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant,  &c.,  &c., 

C.  SCHURZ. 

Hon.  Wm.  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


251 


Copy  of  the  speech  of  Mr.  Schurz. 

Madam  :  In  appearing  before  your  Majesty  as  envoy  extraordinary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  of  America,  I  regard  it  as  my 
most  agreeable  duty  to  communicate  to  your  Majesty  the  friendly  feelings 
which  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  American  nation  entertain 
towards  your  Majesty  and  the  people  of  Spain. 

I  beg  leave  to  assure  your  Majesty  that,  for  the  purpose  of  maintaining 
amicable  relations  with  the  government  of  your  Majesty,  as  far  as  may  be 
consistent  with  the  dignity  and  legitimate  interests  of  the  United  States, 
the  President  could  not  have  selected  a  more  willing  instrument  than  myself. 

I  have  now  the  honor  to  place  into  your  Majesty’s  hands  the  letter  of 
credence  confided  to  me  by  the  President,  and  of  presenting  my  best  wishes 
for  the  health  of  your  Majesty  and  the  royal  family,  and  for  the  prosperity 
of  the  Spanish  nation. 


Reply  of  the  Queen  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

[Translation.] 

Mr.  Minister:  With  true  satisfaction  I  receive  the  letter  which  accredits 
you  as  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States 
of  America  in  my  court,  and  appreciate  most  highly  the  assurances  which 
you  give  me  of  the  sentiments  of  friendship  which  animate  the  President 
and  those  States  towards  my  person  and  the  Spanish  people. 

I  take  a  lively  interest  in  the  prosperity  of  the  nation  which  you  come  to 
represent,  and  cherish  the  hope  that  its  relations  with  Spain  will  always  be 
maintained  in  such  a  way  as  to  satisfy  the  dignity  and  interests  of  both 
peoples. 

I  do  not  doubt  that  you  will  contribute  with  your  enlightenment  to  this 
object,  and  that  your  comportment  will  make  you  worthy  of  the  estimation 
of  my  government. 

I  am  much  gratified,  Mr.  Minister,  with  the  wishes  you  express  for  my 
felicity,  for  that  of  my  family,  and  for  the  prosperity  of  the  Spanish  nation. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Tassara. 

Department  of  State, 

Washington,  J uly  15,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  Secretary  of  State,  has  the  honor  of  addressing  Mr. 
Tassara  on  the  subject  of  certain  vessels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United 
States  now,  or  lately,  detained  at  the  port  of  Cienfuegos,  in  the  Island  of 

Cuba. 

Information  has  been  received  at  this  department  that  a  piratical  armed 
steamer  called  Sumter,  on  the  6th  July  instant,  entered  that  port  with  seven 
vessels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  which  she  had  captured, 
with  their  officers,  and  also  the  officers  and  seamen  of  another  such  vessel 
which  she  had  captured  and  burned  on  the  high  seas.  The  department  is 
further  informed  that  the  Sumter  was,  on  that  occasion,  manned  by  a  full 


252 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


complement  of  seamen,  marines,  officers,  and  firemen;  that  she  carried  an 
armament  of  five  or  eight  heavy  guns,  and  that  thus  manned  and  armed  the 
vessel  was  supplied  with  coal  and  water  at  Cienfuegos,  and  was  allowed  to 
depart  on  the  same  day  to  a  destination  unknown. 

The  undersigned  is  further  informed  that  the  captured  vessels  were  detained 
in  the  port  of  Cienfuegos,  and  that  their  crews,  together  with  that  of  the 
vessel  which  had  been  burned,  were  set  at  liberty. 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  undersigned  to  bring  this  extraordinary  transaction 
to  the  notice  of  the  Spanish  government.  This  government  will  cheerfully 
receive  any  explanations  of  it  which  the  Spanish  government  may  feel  itself 
at  liberty  to  give.  But  in  the  meantime,  assuming  the  facts  to  be  correctly 
presented  as  they  are  above  stated,  the  undersigned  is  instructed  by  the 
President  of  the  United  States  to  inform  the  Spanish  government  that  he 
deems  the  admittance  of  the  said  piratical  vessel,  the  Sumter,  into  the  port 
of  Cienfuegos,  with  the  captured  vessels  and  crews  before  described,  her 
supply  there  with  coal  and  water,  and  her  permitted  departure,  to  have  been 
in  violation  of  the  treaties  existing  between  this  government  and  Spain,  as 
well  as  of  the  law  of  nations;  and  this  government,  in  this  view,  will  expect 
the  immediate  release  and  discharge  of  the  captured  vessels  and  their 
cargoes.  Reserving  the  subject  of  indemnity  for  the  injury  inflicted  upon 
the  United  States  by  the  transaction,  as  recited,  until  time  for  explanation 
shall  have  been  afforded,  the  undersigned  is  nevertheless  instructed  to  ask 
at  once  that  her  Catholic  Majesty’s  government  will  take  effective  measures 
to  prevent  the  recurrence  of  transactions  in  the  ports  of  Spain  of  the  kind 
now  in  question,  which  are  not  more  injurious  to  the  commerce  of  the  United 
States  than  toward  that  of  Spain  herself  and  of  all  other  commercial  nations. 

The  undersigned  is  induced  to  believe  that  those  requests  will  not  only 
meet  prompt  attention,  but  will  even  be  answered  in  a  manner  satisfactory 
to  the  United  States.  This  belief  is  founded  on  these  facts:  first,  a  corre¬ 
spondence  which  has  taken  place  between  the  consul  general  of  the  United 
States  and  his  excellency  the  governor  general  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  re¬ 
lating  to  the  subject  has  been  submitted  to  this  department,  in  which  cor¬ 
respondence  the  governor  general  announces  that  he  has  been  left  without 
the  aid  of  instructions  in  the  matter,  and  that  he  shall  abide  the  directions 
of  his  government,  in  the  meantime  taking  your  advice  in  the  premises. 
Further,  this  government  has  been  advised  by  a  communication  from  Mr. 
Perry,  lately  acting  as  charge  d’affaires  at  Madrid,  under  date  of  the  13th  of 
June  last,  that  he  was  directed  by  the  Spanish  government  to  inform  the 
government  of  the  United  States  that  Spain  would  prohibit  the  entrance  of 
southern  privateers  into  any  of  her  ports,  peninsular  or  colonial,  and  would 
also  prohibit  the  furnishing  of  any  supplies  to  the  rebels,  whether  arms, 
provisions,  coals,  ships,  or  any  other  merchandise,  and  that  armed  vessels, 
with  their  prizes,  would  not  be  permitted  to  enter  the  ports  of  Spain.  More¬ 
over,  the  same  mail  which  brought  the  information  of  this  transaction, 
brought  also  a  despatch  from  Mr.  Perry,  containing  later  assurances  re¬ 
ceived  from  the  government  of  Spain  similar  to  those  already  recited, 
together  with  an  official  copy  of  a  royal  decree  of  the  15th  June,  giving 
legal  effect  to  the  promises  thus  so  repeatedly  made. 

In  specifying  these  particular  grounds  of  confidence  for  an  expectation  of 
a  satisfactory  disposition  of  the  subject  of  this  communication,  the  under¬ 
signed  is  by  no  means  to  be  regarded  as  excluding  the  more  general  assu¬ 
rances  of  amity  and  friendship  which  have  been  lately  exchanged  between 
the  two  governments,  or  their  habits  of  good  faith  and  reciprocal  justice 
which  have  been  confirmed  by  an  almost  unbroken  experience  of  two-thirds 
of  a  century. 

In  order  to  elucidate  the  subject  of  this  note,  the  undersigned  causes  to 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


253 


be  annexed  thereto  a  copy  of  some  of  the  official  communications  to  which 
allusion  has  been  made,  and  especially  the  correspondence  between  his  ex¬ 
cellency  the  governor  general  of  Cuba  and  the  consul  general  of  the  United 
States  in  that  island,  and  the  recent  communication  from  Mr.  Perry,  together 
with  a  copy  of  the  royal  decree  to  which  reference  has  been  made. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  offer  to  Mr.  Tassara  re¬ 
newed  assurances  of  his  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H  SEWARD. 

Senor  Ron  Gabriel  Garcia  y  Tassara,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  14.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  20,  1861. 

Sir:  I  send  you  copies  of  a  correspondence  which  has  taken  place  between 
this  government  and  Mr.  Tassara  respecting  the  detention  of  several  Ameri¬ 
can  vessels  at  Cienfuegos,  which  were  carried  into  that  port  by  the  priva¬ 
teer  Sumter,  with  copies  of  documents  which  illustrate  the  subject. 

I  regret  very  much  that  the  captain  general  did  not  assume  responsibility 
to  deliver  up  the  vessels,  and  that  Mr.  Tassara  also  declined  it.  It  must  be 
apparent  that  the  entire  commerce  of  Spain,  as  well  as  that  of  this  country, 
is  exposed  to  serious  embarrassment  if  her  Catholic  Majesty’s  government, 
under  whatever  view  of  the  subject,  suffers  privateers  to  find  shelter,  or 
supplies,  or  favor. 

This  government  does  not  doubt  that  the  Spanish  government  will 
promptly  direct  the  release  of  the  vessels,  with  their  cargoes. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  8fc.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Madrid. 


Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  5.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  July  22,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  the  royal  order  of  the  16th  of 
May  last,  addressed  to  the  captain  general  of  Cuba,  and  published  in  the 
Gazette  of  the  Havana  on  the  16th  June,  just  published  in  the  official  Gazette 
of  Madrid. 

It  provides  that,  during  the  fourteen  months  after  its  publication  at  the 
Havana,  all  hard  biscuit  should  be  admitted  free  of  duty  in  Cuba,  no  matter 
whence  it  come;  and  also  the  duties  on  Indian  corn,  and  Indian  meal  and 
flour,  potatoes,  and  beans,  should  be  reduced  one-half  during  the  same  period. 

I  suppose  your  attention  will  have  been  drawn  to  this  order  by  the  consul 
of  the  United  States  at  Havana,  and  its  provisions  published  for  the  benefit 
of  our  commerce. 

It  is  another  indication  confirmatory  of  what  has  been  said  by  Mr.  Perry, 
in  his  despatch  No.  13,  and  by  myself,  in  my  No.  3,  of  18th  instant,  as  to  the 
apparent  disposition  of  the  Spanish  government  to  listen  favorably  to  any 


254 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


propositions  for  a  change  in  the  restrictive  system  of  duties  upon  our  com¬ 
merce  with  their  colonies. 

With  the  highest  respect,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  SCHURZ. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Scliurz  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 


No.  6.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid ,  August  5,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatches  Nos. 
10,  11,  12,  and  13.  The  exequatur  for  Mr.  Little  has  immediately  been  ap¬ 
plied  for. 

In  pursuance  of  the  instruction  contained  in  your  despatch  No.  11,  I 
addressed  a  note  to  Senor  Calderon  Collantes,  a  copy  of  which  is  hereto  an¬ 
nexed,  (No.  1.)  I  would  have  solicited  an  interview  with  the  secretary  for 
the  purpose  of  expressing  to  him  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  proclamation 
of  the  Queen  was  received  by  the  President,  had  he  not  been  absent  from 
the  capital.  In  my  despatch  No.  2  I  informed  you  that  on  Monday,  Juty  15, 
the  second  day  after  my  reception,  the  Queen  left  Madrid  for  Santander,  and 
that  the  secretary  for  foreign  affairs  accompanied  her.  Sandander  not  being 
one  of  the  regular  summer  residences  of  the  Queen,  the  diplomatic  corps  re¬ 
mained  here,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few  members  who  were  specially 
invited  to  join  the  court,  probably  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  Neapolitan 
affairs.  It  is  for  this  reason  that  I  have  not  seen  Senor  Calderon  Collantes 
since  the  day  of  my  reception  by  the  Queen.  Having  no  business  on  hand 
which  called  for  immediate  action,  I  deemed  it  prudent  to  follow  the  exam¬ 
ple  of  the  rest  of  the  diplomatic  corps. 

The  court  will  leave  Santander  on  the  13th  instant,  and  then  either  spend 
a  few  days  at  Madrid,  or  go  directly  to  La  Granja,  where  the  Queen  will  be 
joined  by  the  whole  diplomatic  corps. 

;{C  |  >fC  * 


I  am,  sir,  with  high  esteem,  your  obedient  servant, 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


C.  SCHURZ. 


Mr.  Schurz  to  Sehor  Calderon  Collantes . 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid ,  July  31,  1861. 

Sir:  Yesterday  I  received  a  despatch  from  the  Secretary  of  State  of  the 
United  States,  informing  me  that  the  President  has  read  with  the  greatest 
satisfaction  the  proclamation  of  her  Catholic  Majesty  concerning  the  unfor¬ 
tunate  troubles  that  have  arisen  in  the  United  States,  and  it  affords  me  the 
sincerest  pleasure  to  express  to  your  excellency  the  high  sense  which  the 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


255 


President  entertains  of  her  Majesty’s  prompt  decision  and  friendly  action 
upon  this  occasion. 

In  connexion  with  the  fulfilment  of  this  most  agreeable  duty,  I  beg  leave 
to  call  your  excellency’s  attention  to  the  following  telegraphic  report,  con¬ 
tained  in  the  London  “Times”  of  July  27: 

“  Advices  have  been  received  from  Havana  to  the  10th  instant.  The  pri¬ 
vateer  steamer  Sumter  had  captured  eight  American  ships  laden  with  sugar 
on  the  south  side  of  Cuba.  One  was  burnt,  and  the  other  seven  were  taken 
by  prize  crews  into  Cienfuegos.  One  report  states  that  the  captain  general 
of  Cuba  had  released  them.  Another  report  asserts  that  he  had  detained 
them  in  order  to  refer  the  matter  to  Madrid.” 

In  the  latter  case  I  trust  her  Majesty’s  government  will  not  hesitate  to 
cause  the  policy  laid  down  in  the  royal  proclamation  to  be  loyally  and 
promptly  carried  into  effect. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  with  sentiments  of  distinguished  consideration, 
your  excellency’s  obedient  servant, 

C.  SCHURZ. 

His  Excellency  Don  Saturnino  Calderon  Collaxtes, 

First  Secretary  of  State ,  fyc  ,  fye. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Scliurz. 

No.  18.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  8,  18G1. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  July  15  (No.  2)  has  been  received. 

Your  conduct  in  regard  to  your  presentation  at  court  is  approved. 

Your  speech  was  discreet  in  its  points  and  felicitous  in  expression.  The 
Queen’s  reply  is  entirely  satisfactory. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc.  Madrid. 


Mr.  Tassara  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Translation.] 


Legation  of  Spain  at  Washington, 

Washington,  August  9,  1801. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of  her 
Catholic  Majesty,  has  the  honor  to  bring  to  the  knowledge  of  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  that,  according  to  an  official  com¬ 
munication  of  the  28th  of  July  from  the  captain  general  of  the  Island  of 
Cuba,  the  vessels  belonging  to  citizens  of  the  United  States  taken  into  the 
port  of  Cienfuegos  by  the  steamer  “Sumter”  have  been  set  at  liberty,  the 
examination  of  the  case  proving  that  they  were  captured  in  waters  within 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  island,  and  under  unlawful  circumstances. 

The  undersigned  avails  of  this  occasion  to  reiterate  to  the  Hon.  William 
II.  Seward  the  assurances  of  his  highest  consideration. 

GABRIEL  G.  TASSARA. 

lion.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  Slates. 


256 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  21.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  15,  1861. 

Sir:  Mr.  Perry’s  despatch,  No.  13,  dated  July  12,  was  delayed,  and  only 
came  to  hand  simultaneously  with  your  own  despatch  (No.  3)  of  July  18, 
which  relates  in  part  to  the  same  subject,  namely,  the  negotiation  of  a  treaty 
between  the  United  States  and  Spain  for  the  liquidation  of  claims,  and  for 
the  melioration  of  the  commercial  arrangements  between  the  two  governments 
affecting  trade  with  the  Spanish  West  India  colonies.  My  answer  to  your 
own  (No.  3)  includes  all  that  it  seems  necessary  to  say  concerning  Mr. 
Perry’s  communication  first  mentioned,  except  one  point  That  point  I  shall 
now  consider.  Not  only  would  this  government  cheerfully  enter  into  a  treaty 
raising  a  joint  commission  for  the  settling  of  pending  claims  between  the 
two  countries,  or  between  their  citizens  and  subjects,  but  it  deems  it  essen¬ 
tially  important  and  desirable  that  all  such  claims  should  be  put  into  that 
very  proper  channel  for  settlement.  But  this  government  does  not  regard 
the  so-called  Amistad  claim  as  having  any  valid  obligation  in  law  or  con¬ 
science,  and  can  in  no  case  consent  to  negotiate  upon  it.  While,  therefore, 
we  shall  not  be  critical  as  to  the  form  of  words  to  be  used  in  describing  the 
claims  to  be  submitted  to  the  proposed  joint  commission,  frankness  requires 
that  the  exception  of  that  supposed  claim  shall  be  expressed,  or  at  least  dis¬ 
tinctly  understood. 

I  am  well  aware  that  this  instruction  differs  radically  from  admissions  and 
acknowledgments  heretofore  made  by  several  of  the  predecessors  of  the 
President.  Each  of  them  has  considered  the  subject  for  himself,  and  pro¬ 
nounced  upon  it  according  to  his  own  convictions.  The  new  President,  un¬ 
der  the  same  obligation,  instructs  me  to  make  known  to  you  his  disallowance 
of  the  claim  in  question.  It  were,  indeed,  to  be  desired  that  there  should  be 
consistency  in  the  action  of  the  government  throughout  successive  adminis¬ 
trations,  especially  where  foreign  nations  are  concerned,  but  justice  and 
reason  cannot  be  safely  compromised  b}'  any  government,  even  for  the  sake 
of  preserving  perfect  consistency  with  itself  through  a  series  of  years,  and 
in  its  intercourse  with  foreign  states. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Madrid. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  23.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  20,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  22d  July,  No.  5,  has  been  received.  The  re¬ 
duction  of  imposts  on  certain  productions  of  the  United  States  made  by  the 
Spanish  government  is  a  favorable  step  in  the  right  direction,  and,  as  such, 
will  be  very  gratifying  to  the  people  of  the  United  States.  Due  publicity 
to  the  regulation  has  been  given. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  dec.,  &c ,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


257 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  26.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  3,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  6,  under  the  date  of  August  6,  has  been  re¬ 
ceived.  Your  note  written  to  Mr.  Calderon  Collantes  on  the  subject  of  the 
reception  of  the  piratical  vessel  Sumter  with  her  prizes  at  Cienfuegos  was 
eminently  proper  and  is  approved.  You  are  already  aware  that  the  gov¬ 
ernor  general  of  the  Island  of  Cuba  has  released  the  prizes.  I  defer  further 
remark  concerning  that  transaction,  if  indeed  any  shall  now  be  necessary, 
until  the  answer  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  your  note  shall  have 
been  received. 

Your  attention  to  my  request  concerning  certain  matters  in  Paris  is 
highly  appreciated. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  dec.,  dec.,  dec. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  28.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  7,  dated  August  6,  has  been  received.  I  can 
very  well  understand  that  you  were  deeply  distressed  by  the  first  reports 
of  the  battle  at  Bull  Run.  Those  reports  grossly  exaggerated  a  disastei 
which  was  sufficiently  afflicting  in  its  real  proportions.  The  exultation  ot 
persons  and  classes  in  foreign  nations  prejudiced  against  our  country  and 
its  institutions  is  one  of  the  penalties  we  pay  for  the  civil  discord  into 
which  we  have  fallen.  But  even  a  very  limited  experience  of  human  nature 
will  enable  us  to  practice  the  necessary  equanimity  in  such  a  crisis. 
Changes  of  habit  and  policy  are  necessary  to  national  growth  and  progress. 
We  have  had  little  reason  to  expect  that  such  changes  in  our  case  should 
always  be  effected  without  the  occurrence  of  some  disorder  and  violence. 
Let  us  be  content  that  the  country  has  virtue  enough  to  pass  the  ordeal 
safely,  and  that  when  it  is  passed,  our  prosperity  will  be  greater  and  more 
assured  than  ever. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq., 

dec.,  dec.,  dec.,  Madrid. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz,  with  accompaniments. 

No.  30.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  18,  1861. 

Sir:  I  write  this  despatch  with  a  view  that  you  shall  ask  permission  of 
Mr.  Calderon  Collantes  to  read  it  to  him,  and  if  he  shall  be  disposed  to  receive 
it  you  will  deliver  a  copy  of  it  to  him. 

17 


258 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  think  that  the  Spanish  government  can  entertain  no  doubt  that  the  United 
States  earnestly  and  even  anxiously  desire  to  avert,  if  possible,  any  such 
alienation  as  might  lead  to  a  conflict  between  the  two  countries  as  an  episode 
in  the  civil  war  which  is  unhappily  prevailing  at  the  present  moment  in  the 
southern  part  of  the  republic.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied  that  the  Spanish 
government  is  animated  by  the  same  desire.  Upon  this  point  I  speak  sin¬ 
cerely  and  upon  full  consideration.  I  am  not  equally  confident,  however, 
that  the  consuls  of  the  United  States  in  the  Island  of  Cuba  will  always,  in 
the  absence  of  special  instructions  for  unforeseen  contingencies,  exercise  the 
discretion  which  the  interests  of  our  country  require. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  is  not  to  be  misunderstood  as  fearing 
to  encounter  the  intervention  of  Spain  in  favor  of  the  insurgents  of  this 
country,  if  her  Catholic  Majesty’s  sentiments  and  purposes  have  been  mis¬ 
construed.  We  are  aware,  we  think,  of  all  the  perils  of  our  situation,  and 
have  not  overlooked  the  not  unnatural  one  of  foreign  alliances  with  our  dis¬ 
loyal  citizens. 

The  valuable  commerce  carried  on  between  the  United  States  and  the 
Island  of  Cuba  is  often  attended  with  incidents  which  require  the  exercise  of 
great  discretion  and  of  mutual  forbearance  to  prevent  collisions  between  the 
consular  authority  of  the  United  States,  allowed  by  treaties  and  the  law  of 
nations,  and  the  just  sovereign  authority  of  Spain. 

I  desire  to  state,  in  a  spirit  of  perfect  frankness,  what  deviation  from  the 
usages  of  revenue  and  commerce  between  sovereign  states,  as  recognized  by 
treaty  and  international  law,  this  government  tolerates  in  the  transaction  of 
American  commerce  in  the  ports  of  Cuba,  and  in  all  other  foreign  ports. 

When  an  American  merchant  vessel  arrives  in  a  foreign  port,  having 
cleared  from  a  port  in  the  United  States  which,  at  the  time  of  her  departure, 
was  in  the  possession  of  the  insurgents,  and  for  that  reason  she  could  not 
have  obtained  regular  papers  from  officers  acting  under  the  authority  of  the 
United  States,  and  conformable  to  the  laws  of  Congress,  this  government 
does  not  insist  that  she  shall  be  denationalized  for  that  reason.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  does  expect  that  she  shall,  in  the  port  where  she  arrives,  be 
treated  in  all  respects  as  an  American  vessel  and  subject  to  the  consular 
authority  of  the  United  States,  and  that  she  shall  not  be  treated  as  a  vessel 
independent  of  the  laws  and  consular  authority  of  this  nation. 

The  waiving  of  the  irregularity  of  the  papers  in  such  cases  is  consented  to 
ex  yiecessitate ,  and  for  the  present  time  only,  and  is  not  to  be  drawn  into  pre¬ 
cedent.  But  wThen  this  government  shall  see  fit  to  withdraw  this  concession, 
due  notice  will  be  given  to  foreign  powers. 

1  send  you  copies  of  papers  which  have  just  been  received  from  the  vice- 
consul  general  of  the  United  States  residing  in  Havana,  namely,  despatches 
Nos.  56  and  60,  dated  the  6th  and  10  instant,  respectively,  with  their  accom¬ 
paniments. 

These  papers  furnish  some  ground  to  apprehend  that  the  Spanish  author¬ 
ities  in  Cuba,  misinterpreting,  as  I  am  happy  to  think,  the  royal  edict  of  the 
11th  of  June,  are  practicing,  or  are  about  to  practice,  upon  the  principles  of 
recognizing  an  insurgent  flag  upon  American  vessels,  and  denying  the  con¬ 
sular  rights  and  privileges  of  the  United  States  in  reference  to  such  insurgent 
vessels  in  Spanish  ports. 

I  forbear  from  preferring  any  complaint  concerning  the  cases  mentioned 
in  these  papers,  partly  for  the  reason  that  the  transactions  mentioned  therein 
are  incompletely  presented,  and  more  for  the  reason  that  I  am  seeking  the 
prevention  of  future  difficulties  by  the  government  of  Spain  in  an  amicable 
spirit.  I  neither  make  nor  ask  explanations  in  these  cases.  But  I  desire 
that  Mr.  Calderon  Collantes  will  examine  the  papers,  and,  after  having  satis- 


CORRESPONDENCE, 


259 


fied  himself  of  the  true  state  of  the  case,  will  give  such  directions,  if  he  shall 
find  it  necessary  to  do  so,  to  the  colonial  authorities  as  will  prevent  any 
recognition  whatever  in  the  Spanish  ports  of  the  flag  of  the  insurgents,  or 
any  disrespect  to  the  flag  of  the  United  States,  by  the  Spanish  authorities,  or 
any  infraction  of  their  consular  authority  in  those  ports. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Madrid. 


October  4. 

P,  S. — The  unavoidable  delay  which  has  taken  place  in  the  preparation  of 
the  accompaniments  of  this  instruction  has  enabled  me  to  add  the  transcript 
of  another  despatch  from  the  vice-consul  general  of  the  United  States  at 
Havana,  received  at  the  department  on  the  1st  instant,  and  dated  on  the  24th 
ultimo,  (No.  63,)  relating  to  the  ship  “Bamberg”  and  brig  “Allen  A. 
Chapman.” 


Mr.  Savage  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  56.]  Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Havana,  September  6,  1861. 


Sir  :  Having  learned,  on  the  30th  ultimo,  as  I  might  say  accidentally, 
that  a  vessel  had  come,  several  day's  before,  into  the  port  of  Matanzas  under 
the  flag  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  and,  notwithstanding  the  efforts 
of  our  consul  there  to  prevent  it,  had  been  admitted  by  the  authorities  to 
entry,  and  to  discharge  her  cargo,  which  course  had  been  approved  of  by 
the  superior  authority  of  the  island,  I  addressed  the  same  day  a  letter  to 
Mr.  Martin,  calling  upon  him  for  information  on  the  subject.  No  reply  hav¬ 
ing  been  received  on  the  2d  instant  to  my  letter,  I  wrote  again,  and  yester¬ 
day  morning  his  answer  came  to  hand.  A  copy  of  it  and  the  accompanying 
papers  are  herewith  enclosed.  This  correspondence  contains  all  the  facts 
relating  to  that  case. 


On  the  same  day  that  I  wrote  my  first  letter  to  Consul  Martin  I  ascer¬ 
tained  that  the  governor  general  had  decided  to  admit  into  the  ports  of  the 
island  all  vessels  arriving  under  the  flag  of  the  insurgents,  and  to  allow 
them  to  discharge  and  take  cargo.  On  the  next  day  I  succeeded  in  obtain¬ 
ing  a  copy,  and  it  is  now  accompanied  with  a  translation  thereof.  This 
order  was  transmitted  by  the  intendant  general  of  the  army  and  treasury 
to  the  collector  general  of  the  maritime  revenue;  has  not  been  published 
nor  communicated  to  me  in  any  form;  and,  although  its  existence  is  known 
to  many,  the  public  journals,  excepting  the  Weekly  Report  in  a  general 
way,  have  not  even  mentioned  it. 

In  a  matter  of  such  import,  and  feeling  the  conviction  that  no  suggestions 
of  this  office  would  cause  the  captain  general  to  cancel  that  order,  I  have 
deemed  it  expedient  not  to  enter  into  any  correspondence  or  discussion  with 
him  without  specific  instructions  from  the  department;  more  especially  after 
reading  what  Mr.  Wheaton  advances  upon  the  subject,  in  pages  32,  33,  and 
34,  Elements  of  International  Law.  Moreover,  as  the  Spanish  government 
has  always  denied  to  consuls  any  diplomatic  power,  I  felt  apprehensive  that 
my  first  communication  on  the  subject  would  be  unheeded,  or  acknowledged 


260 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


with  the  remarks  that  the  question  comes  within  the  province  of  our  respec¬ 
tive  governments,  and  to  be  settled  at  Washington  or  Madrid. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  SAVAGE,  Jr., 

U.  S  Vice-Consul  General. 


Hon.  AY  m.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  Washington. 


His  excellency  the  superior  civil  governor  has,  on  date  of  27tli  instant  , 
resolved  the  following: 

1st.  All  merchant  vessels  proceeding  from  and  wearing  the  flag  of  the 
southern  confederacy,  employed  in  legitimate  commerce,  will  be  admitted 
in  all  the  ports  of  entry  of  this  island,  if  the  documents  they  may  present 
do  not  cause  the  slightest  suspicion  of  piracy,  fraud,  or  any  other  crime 
punishable  according  to  the  laws  of  all  nations. 

2d.  Once  in  our  ports,  said  vessels  will  be  under  the  safeguard  of  the 
neutrality  proclaimed  by  the  government  of  her  Majesty  the  Queen  (whom 
God  save)  in  the  royal  decree  of  the  17th  of  June,  and  in  this  understanding 
they  cannot  be  molested  by  any  foreign  agent  whilst  engaged  in  their  licit 
operations  of  entrance  and  discharge,  loading  and  departure,  in  said  ports. 

3d.  Therefore,  all  the  civil,  as  well  as  naval  and  treasury,  authorities  in 
the  ports  of  this  island  will  consider  such  vessels,  in  relation  to  their  admis¬ 
sion  and  clearance,  as  vessels  proceeding  from  a  foreign  nation  which  has 
no  accredited  consul  in  this  territory. 

Which,  by  order  of  the  intend  ant  general,  I  communicate  to  you  for  your 
intelligence  and  fulfilment  of  the  part  that  concerns  you. 


Mr.  Savage  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  60.]  Consulate  General  United  States  of  America  at  Havana, 

September  10,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  lay  before  you  copies  of  correspondence  between 
this  consulate  and  various  authorities  respecting  the  ship  Bamberg  and  brig 
Allen  A.  Chapman.  By  reference  to  the  communications  that  passed  between 
the  commercial  court  and  myself,  you  will  see  that  I  objected  to  any  inter¬ 
ference  on  the  part  of  that  court  against  the  action  taken  by  this  consulate 
in  respect  to  the  Bamberg.  I  have  learned  that  on  receipt  of  my  letter  the 
court  cancelled  the  order  it  had  issued  granting  permission  for  the  survey 
and  discharge  of  the  ship,  and  has  referred  the  matter  to  the  governor 
general. 

But  on  Sunday,  the  1st  instant,  both  the  "‘Bamberg”  and  “A.  A.  Chap¬ 
man,”  by  preconcerted  design,  prompted  by  the  governor  general’s  order 
in  relation  to  vessels  arriving  in  open  ports  of  the  island  under  the  flag  of 
the  so-called  Confederate  States,  put  up  rebel  flags  at  their  fore  and  main 
mastheads.  The  A.  A.  Chapman  had  the  rebel  flag  of  the  southern  confed¬ 
eracy  at  the  fore,  and  the  flag  adopted  by  Louisiana  after  she  seceded  from 
the  Union  at  the  main  masthead,  the  American  colors  hanging  from  a  rope 
at  the  stern.  The  Bamberg  had  the  so-called  Louisiana  flag  at  the  main 
masthead,  the  American  at  the  peak.  I  consider  the  so-called  flag  of  Lou¬ 
isiana  to  be  an  emblem  of  rebellion. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


2G1 


My  correspondence  with  the  captain  general  and  captain  of  the  port  will 
show  the  course  I  have  deemed  proper  to  adopt,  and  I  trust  it  will  meet  with 
your  approbation. 

I  have  no  answer  as  yet  from  the  governor  general.  He  has  probably 
referred  the  case  for  consultation  before  adopting  a  decision  to  communi¬ 
cate  to  this  consulate. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  profound  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  SAVAGE,  Jr., 

Vice-Consul  General 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States ,  Washington. 


N.  B. — I  accompany  also  registers  arid  crew-lists  of  the  Bamberg  and 
A.  A.  Chapman. 

THOMAS  SAVAGE. 


Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America  at  Havana, 

September  1,  1861. 

Sir  :  In  the  month  of  May  last  this  consulate  caused  to  be  posted  in  the 
most  conspicuous  places  frequented  by  American  shipmasters  the  following 
notice : 

“As  the  President  of  the  United  States  has  officially  declared  that  certain 
States  of  the  Union  are  in  a  condition  of  open  rebellion  against  the  govern¬ 
ment,  and  as  in  time  of  war  treason  consists  in  giving  aid  and  comfort  to  the 
enemy ,  therefore  I  have  to  inform  all  masters  of  American  vessels  in  the  port 
of  Havana  that  this  consulate  cannot  give  protection  to  any  vessel  claiming 
to  be  an  American  which  hoists  the  rebel  flag  on  any  part  thereof.” 

After  some  demurring  on  the  part  of  three  or  four  vessels  that  were  at 
the  time  lying  in  this  port,  the  practice  of  hoisting  rebellious  flags  was  dis¬ 
continued,  and  the  consulate  entertained  the  hope  that  thereafter  no  case 
would  occur  requiring  the  enforcement  of  that  notice.  But  in  consequence 
of  an  order  reported  to  have  been  issued  recently  by  your  excellency  to  the 
collectors  of  customs  and  authorities  of  the  island,  in  respect  to  vessels  that 
may  arrive  in  her  ports  bearing  the  flag  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States, 
that  offensive  practice  has  been  revived  to-day  by  the  ship  Bamberg ,  James 
E.  Wilner  master,  and  brigantine  Allen  A.  Chapman ,  A.  P.  Laurent  master. 
Both  of  these  vessels  are  in  this  port  under  registers  of  the  United  States  of 
America,  and  have  been  hitherto  enjoying  the  protection  of  our  government. 

Under  the  present  circumstances,  and  in  obedience  to  the  general  instruc¬ 
tions  of  my  government,  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  withhold  from  the  two  vessels 
above  named  the  protection  of  the  United  States,  consequently  to  forbid 
their  using  in  future  the  flag  of  the  United  States  of  America.  Their  papers, 
evidencing  their  former  American  nationality,  which  are  deposited  in  my 
office,  will  be  forwarded  by  me  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  by 
the  first  conveyance. 

Consequently,  as  no  connexion  can  from  this  day  forth  exist  between  those 
vessels  and  this  consulate,  I  hereby  respectfully  request  of  youf  excellency 
to  make  the  above  determination  known  to  the  masters  thereof ;  and  inas¬ 
much  as  the  crews  of  those  vessels  have  become  entitled  to  their  discharge, 
and  to  be  paid  at  the  office  of  this  consulate  the  wages  and  extra  wages 
described  by  law,  I  have  furthermore  to  request  of  your  excellency  that 
you  will  cause  the  said  crews  or  such  part  thereof  as  may  be  yet  attached 


262 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


to  the  vessels  to  he  notified  of  this  their  right,  and  the  payment  of  the  wages 
that  may  accrue  to  each  person  to  be  enforced. 

In  calling  on  your  excellency  for  this  assistance,  I  trust  that  I  am  asking 
nothing  incompatible  with  the  strictest  rules  of  propriety. 

By  a  prompt  attention  to  the  subject-matter  of  this  communication,  and 
an  early  reply  thereto,  you  will  confer  a  favor  on  the  undersigned,  who  has 
the  honor  to  remain,  with  considerations  of  great  respect  and  esteem,  your 
excellency’s  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  SAVAGE, 

In  charge  of  the  Consulate  General. 

His  Excellency  the  Governor,  Captain  General  of  Cuba,  fyc.,  fyc.,  &fc. 


Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America  at  Havana, 

September  I,  1861. 

Sir:  Not  having  been  as  yet  favored  with  an  answer  to  the  official 
letter  I  had  the  honor  to  address  your  excellency  on  the  1st  instant,  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  ship  Bamberg  and  brigantine  Allen  A.  Chapman,  I  have  now 
respectfully  to  advise  that  as  to-morrow  is  Sunday,  when  all  vessels  in  the 
harbor  are  bound,  according  to  the  port  regulations,  to  hoist  and  keep  up 
during  the  day  their  national  colors,  and  those  vessels  will  probably  show 
their  national  colors  at  the  peak,  I  shall  be  constrained,  in  this  event,  to 
call  upon  his  excellency  the  brigadier  captain  of  the  port,  and  request  him 
to  cause  the  said  flag  to  be  hauled  down.  I  beg  leave  to  repeat  that  the 
said  vessels,  by  the  act  of  their  commanders  in  hoisting  rebellious  flags  at 
the  fore  and  main  mastheads,  have  forfeited  their  American  nationality,  and 
consequently  cannot  be  permitted  to  wear  the  flag  of  the  United  States  of 
America. 

1  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  your  excellency  the  assurances 
of  respect  and  consideration  with  which  I  am  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  SAVAGE, 

In  charge  if  Consulate  General. 

His  Excellency  the  Governor,  Captain  General  of  Cuba,  &c.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America  at  Havana, 

September  8,  1861. 

My  Dear  Sir,  and  of  all  my  consideration:  For  the  reasons  set  forth  to 
his  excellency  the  superior  civil  governor  and  captain  general  of  this 
island  in  my  communications  of  the  1st  and  7th  instant,  I  have  deemed  it 
proper  to  withhold  from  the  ship  Bamberg  and  brigantine  Allen  A.  Chapman 
the  protection  of  the  United  States  flag,  not  recognizing  them  as  American 
vessels  any  longer.  As  the  said  vessels  have  our  flag  hoisted,  I  find  myself 
in  the  necessity  of  soliciting  of  your  excellency  to  order  that  the  same  be 
immediately  hauled  down.  And  as  I  must  transmit  to  m37  government  by 
the  steamer  Columbia,  which  is  to  sail  on  the  10th,  the  papers  of  the  said 
vessels,  including  the  roll,  I  request  of  your  excellency  to  place  that  of 
each  of  them  at  m37  disposal  for  the  purpose.  I  will  on  my  part  furnish 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


263 


your  office  with  authenticated  copies,  that  it  may  possess  the  requisite 
evidence  respecting'  the  crews  of  both  vessels. 

I  have  much  pleasure  in  repeating  myself  your  very  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  SAVAGE, 

In  charge  of  the  Consulate  General. 

His  Excellency  the  Brigadier  Captain  of  this  port. 

Note. — A  notice  came  on  the  same  day  from  the  captain  of  the  port’s 
office,  advising  that  he  was  absent,  and  no  action  could  be  taken  but  by 
himself. 


(Translation.) 


Molinos, 

Captain  General's  country  residence ,  September  8,  1861. 

Sir:  An  accident,  of  those  which  are  so  apt  to  occur  in  public  offices  that 
have  so  much  business  as  those  of  this  government,  has  been  the  cause  of 
the  mislaying,  without  being  able  to  find  it,  of  your  communication  of  the 
1st  instant  relative  to  the  ship  ‘'Bamberg”  and  brig  “Allen  A.  Chapman.” 
To  avoid,  therefore,  greater  delay  in  answering  it,  his  excellency  directs  me 
to  ask  you  to  reproduce  it,  with  the  assurance  that  immediately  you  do  it 
you  will  receive  a  reply  thereto,  and  also  to  the  other  representation  which 
you  make  in  your  second  letter  of  the  7th. 

With  this  motive,  I  have  the  honor  of  offering  to  you  the  assurance  of 
consideration  with  which  I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

ANSELMO  DE  VILLAESCUSA, 

First  Chief  of  Bureau,  in  the  office  of  the 

Secretary  of  the  Superior  Civil  Government. 

Thomas  Savage,  Esq. 

Note. — The  above,  although  appearing  in  the  shape  of  a  private  letter, 
came  under  the  seal  of  the  superior  government  of  Cuba. 


[Translation.] 

[seal.]  Captaincy  of  the  Port  of  Havana. 

I  have  received  your  polite  communication  of  yesterday’s  date,  in  which 
you  are  pleased  to  state  to  me  that  for  the  reasons  you  have  thought  proper 
to  lay  before  his  excellency  the  superior  civil  governor,  captain  general  of 
this  island,  in  communications  of  the  1st  and  7th  instant,  and  that  1  am 
ignorant  of,  you  have  deemed  it  expedient  to  withhold  from  the  ship  Bamberg 
and  brig  A.  A.  Chapman  the  protection  of  the  United  States  flag,  not  recog¬ 
nizing  them  as  American  vessels  any  longer. 

The  said  vessels  hoisted  on  yesterday  the  flag  of  the  United  States,  be¬ 
cause  they  appear  at  this  office  as  such.  And  as  it  is  ordained  in  the  port 
regulations  that  all  vessels  therein  hoist  their  respective  flags,  the  Bamberg 
and  A.  A.  Chapman  put  up  the  American,  under  which  they  entered  the  port, 
and  appearing  as  American. 

I  felt  great  regret  that  I  could  not  make  them  haul  down  their  flag  as 


264 


CORRESPONDENCE.. 


you  requested  me  on  yesterday,  owing  to  the  lateness  of  the  time  in  which 
I  received  your  attentive  letter,  inasmuch  as  the  masters  of  those  vessels 
having  asked  of  me  on  the  preceding  day  (Saturday)  to  let  them  know  what 
flag  they  had  to  put  up  on  Sunday.  I  told  them  clearly  that  they  had  to 
hoist  the  American,  being  the  only  one  they  could  put  up,  as  being  the  same 
they  had  entered  with,  as  evidenced  in  this  qffice  to  the  present  time  they 
are  such  vessels  of  the  United  States. 

I  have  the  honor  of  enclosing  the  crew  lists  of  said  vessels  that  you  call 
for,  hoping  that  you  will  please  furnish  certified  copies  thereof  for  record  in 
this  office.  You  will  at  the  same  time  be  pleased  to  inform  me  in  what 
situation  the  said  vessels  remain  after  protection  has  been  taken  from  them 
by  the  consulate  of  your  worthy  charge. 

I  have  great  satisfaction  in  offering  to  you  the  respects  of  the  highest 
consideration. 

God  preserve  you  many  years. 


BLAS  G.  BE  QUESADA. 


Havana,  September  9,  1861. 

The  Consul  General  of  the  United  States. 


Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America  at  Havana, 

September  10,  1861. 

Sir:  I  had  the  honor  to  receive  on  yesterday  your  excellency’s  polite  com¬ 
munication  of  the  same  date,  in  answer  to  mine  of  last  Sunday,  requesting 
you  to  cause  the  ship  Bamberg  and  brig  A.  A.  Chapman  to  haul  down  the 
American  colors  which  they  were  ftying. 

The  reason  why  those  vessels  have  forfeited  the  protection  of  the  United 
States  under  which  they  entered  this  port  is,  that  their  commanders  on  the 
previous  Sunday  hoisted  rebellious  flags  at  their  fore  and  main  mast  heads, 
thereby  showing  their  hostility  to  the  government  whose  protection  they 
had  been  enjoying  and  whose  flag  covered  them. 

In  the  first  part  of  May  last  this  consulate  gave  notice  that  it  could  not 
give  protection  to  any  vessel  claiming  to  be  American  which  hoisted  the 
rebel  flag,  or  any  part  thereof.  This  was  made  known  to  the  government  of 
the  United  States,  who  approved  of  it,  directing  the  consulate  not  to  recog¬ 
nize  as  vessels  of  the  United  States  any  that  hoisted  any  other  flag  but  that 
prescribed  by  law. 

The  masters  of  the  “  Bamberg”  and  “Allen  A.  Chapman”  cannot  allege 
ignorance  ;  they  deliberately  disregarded  the  warning  given  them,  and  now 
must  abide  the  consequences  of  their  act ;  and  having  no  longer  the  right 
to  wear  the  American,  they  must  remain  without  any  flag  to  cover  them, 
for  I  do  not  see  that  they  are  at  liberty  to  use  the  colors  of  any  other  nation, 
being  unprovided  with  the  requisite  papers. 

By  the  United  States  registers,  which  the  said  vessels  had  been  sailing 
under,  the  Bamberg  is  owned  by — 


Mr.  Henrv  V.  Baxter 


10-32 

2-32 


Mr.  James  C.  Wilner,  (master) 
Mr.  Charles  Sagory . 


10-32  ^  Of  New  Orleans. 


Mr  E.  M.  Brown . 

Mr.  P.  Pages . 

Mr.  Conrad  Charles  Maletta 
Mr.  William  Tyson . 


4-32 

2-32 


CORRESPONDENCE.  265 

The  Allen  A.  Chapman  is  wholly  owned  by  Mr.  Stanislas  Plassan,  of  New 
Orleans. 

I  transmit  herewith  certified  copies  of  the  crew  lists  of  both  vessels  for 
the  purposes  of  your  office  ;  and  regretting  the  trouble  1  have  caused  you 
with  this  annoying  affair,  I  renew  the  assurances  of  respect  and  esteem 
with  which  I  am  your  excellency’s  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  SAVAGE, 

In  charge  of  the  Consulate  General. 

His  Excellency  Brigadier  Don  Blas  G.  de  Quesada, 

Captain  of  this  Port,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


No.  63.]  Consulate  General  of  the  United  States  of  America  at  Havana, 

September  24,  1861. 

Sir:  The  accompanying  documents  form  the  captain  general’s  answer  to 
my  last  communication  in  respect  to  the  ship  “Bamberg”  and  brig  “Allen 
A.  Chapman.”  I  leave  the  matter  now  in  the  hands  of  the  department, 
trusting  that  the  course  I  adopted  towards  those  vessels  will  be  considered 
worthy  of  your  approval. 

The  captain  general  advised  me  that  the  Bamberg  is  to  discharge  here. 
Such  articles  as  armament  and  munitions  of  war  will  be  deposited  in  the 
government  stores,  and  the  rest  of  the  cargo  will  be  entered  for  consump¬ 
tion.  His  excellency  invited  me  to  attend  the  inspection  of  her  cargo,  but 
I  deemed  it  my  duty  to  decline  the  invitation.  The  ship  is  now  at  the  wharf. 
It  is  credited  by  mail}7  that  she  has  since  her  arrival  discharged  arms,  which 
have  found  their  way  to  the  southern  ports.  Though  I  have  had  a  species 
of  surveillance,  nothing  has  been  discovered;  and  yet  I  cannot  but  believe 
that  arms,  &c.,  have  been  taken  out  of  her,  not  from  under  the  hatches,  but 
from  places  of  concealment  in  the  cabin  and  elsewhere,  accessible  without 
taking  off  the  hatches.  Such  things  were,  of  course,  not  manifested  to  this 
custom-house. 

I  wrote  in  my  last  despatch  that  Captain  Laurent,  of  the  A.  A.  Chapman, 
sailed  for  New  Orleans  in  a  French  war  steamer.  I  now  confirm  the  report, 
and  add  that  he  took  many  letters  from  here.  In  all  probability  he  will 
return  in  the  same  steamer,  bringing  powers  of  attorney  for  the  sale  of  the 
“Bamberg”  and  the  “Allen  A.  Chapman.” 

F.  0.  Sullivan  finally  did  not  go  in  command  of  the  Isilda.  A  man  named 
Emmerson,  who  belonged  to  the  rebel  steamer  Sumter,  and  was  prize  mate 
on  the  Joseph  Maxwell,  went  in  her  as  master.  Hicks,  the  midshipman  of 
the  Sumter,  and  two  other  gentlemen,  formerly  of  the  United  States  navy, 
went  as  passengers  in  the  Isilda. 

The  United  States  schooner  Nonpareil  arrived  here  yesterday  from  Key 
West,  to  fetch  despatches  of  the  British  commodore.  No  news  from  there. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOS.  SAVAGE, 

Vice  Consul  Geueral. 


Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  Washington. 


266 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


[Translation  ] 

Government,  Captain  Generalcy,  and  Delegated  Superintendency 

of  the  Exchequer  of  the  ever-faithful  Island  of  Cuba. 

I  transmit  to  you  herewith,  duly  authenticated,  a  copy  of  the  report  made 
by  his  excellency  the  general  commanding  this  naval  station,  in  accordance 
with  the  opinion  of  the  legal  adviser  of  the  same,  upon  the  subject  of  the 
communication  of  the  13th  instant,  wherein  you  were  pleased  to  answer 
mine  of  the  12th  I  fully  concur  in  the  opinions  given  by  his  excellency 
and  pursuant  thereto  I  address,  under  this  same  date,  her  Catholic  Majesty’s 
minister  at  Washington,  in  order  that,  by  an  understanding  with  the  gov¬ 
ernment,  may  be  fixed,  in  a  precise  and  definite  manner,  the  course  which,  in 
cases  analogous  to  those  of  the  “Bamberg”  and  “Allan  A.  Chapman,”  should 
be  pursued,  respectively,  by  you  and  by  the  superior  authority  of  Cuba. 
Thus  barren  debates  will  be  avoided,  and  a  course  adopted  consonant  with 
the  loyalty  and  harmony  which  this  government  always  uses  in  the  treat¬ 
ment  of  international  affairs. 

In  the  meanwhile  I  will  state  to  you  that,  for  the  purpose  of  exhibiting 
practically  my  desire  of  acceding  as  far  as  possible  to  your  requests,  I  have 
made  known,  confidentially,  to  the  captains  that  they  are  not  to  hoist  any 
more  the  flag  of  the  United  States;  and  they  have  pledged  to  the  captain  of 
the  port  their  word  of  honor  not  to  do  it. 

This  communication  should  terminate  here,  inasmuch  as  I  have  stated  I 
cannot  accede  in  an  official  form  to  what  is  required  by  you,  without  any¬ 
thing  else  being  thereby  implied,  but  that  I  do  not  believe  the  moment  has 
arrived  for  the  aid  of  jurisdiction  that  you  solicit.  But  I  cannot  allow  to 
pass  unnoticed  two  remarks  made,  respectively,  in  the  communications  of 
the  1st  and  13th  instants,  without  setting  forth  in  regard  to  them  my  manner 
of  appreciating  them.  The  first  is  the  relation  you  find  between  tne  cases 
of  the  “Bamberg”  and  the  “Allan”  and  the  circular,  which  you  say  was 
issued  by  my  authority,  to  the  collectors  of  customs  respecting  the  tolera¬ 
tion  towards  the  flag  of  the  seceded  States.  I  will  frankly  confess  to  you 
that  I  find  no  connexion  or  link  between  the  two  subjects.  In  the  first  the 
object  is  not  to  injure  the  interests  of  our  national  trade,  because  you  already 
understand  Spain  never  could  have  bound  herself  to  discontinue  her  com¬ 
mercial  transactions  with  the  south,  whatever  maybe  the  state  of  its  internal 
relations  with  the  north.  In  the  other  the  matter  in  question  is  that  you 
require  two  vessels  to  be  notified  that  they  shall  not  use  the  flag  under 
which  they  entered  the  port,  which  was  hitherto,  and  still  is  officially, 
according  to  the  papers  they  produced,  that  of  their  true  nationality. 

The  second  remark  is  that  my  declining  to  make  the  notification  called 
for  might  be  interpreted  as  a  species  of  opposition  to  your  consular  authority. 
Upon  this  particular  I  will  make  only  two  observations.  One  is  that  you 
are  well  aware  that  in  all  questions  hitherto  occurring  the  government  of 
this  island  has  not  spared  any  means  of  showing  its  deference  to  that  of  the 
United  States,  represented  by  you;  examples  of  which  might  be  adduced, 
which  I  omit,  not  to  make  this  writing  too  long.  The  second  is  that  such 
opposition  could  not  in  any  way  be  supposed,  when  the  subject  in  question 
solely  is  that  you  yourself  wish  to  cut  off  vessels  which  till  now  have 
belonged  to  the  United  States,  and  have  been  by  you,  in  conjunction  with 
your  government,  denationalized,  by  the  fact  of  taking  their  papers  from 
them.  I  consider  as  sufficiently  answered  the  observations  you  make  upon 
the  subject,  without  my  entertaining,  even  remotely,  the  idea  that  the  con¬ 
sulate  could  have  doubted  for  a  single  moment  of  the  good  faith  of  this  gov- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


267 


ernment,  in  the  same  manner  that  I  have  not  doubted  or  will  ever  doubt  of 
that  which  animates  you,  whose  high  qualities  in  all  respects  I  take  pleasure 
in  acknowledging. 

God  preserve  you  many  years. 

Fco  SERRANO. 

Havana,  September  20,  1861. 

The  Consul  General  of  the  United  States  in  this  city 


[Translation.] 


COMMANDANCY  GENERAL  OF  THE  HAVANA  NAVAL  STATION, 

Havana ,  September  15,  1861. 

Most  Excellent  Sir:  The  auditor  of  marine  of  this  station,  to  whom  I  re¬ 
ferred  for  his  opinion  upon  your  excellency’s  official  letter  of  yesterday  ac¬ 
companying  the  new  communication  in  which  the  consul  general  of  the 
United  States  insists  on  his  reclamation  relating  to  the  use  of  the  American 
flag  by  the  ship  “Bamberg”  and  brig  “Allan  A.  Chapman,”  says  to  me 
under  this  date  as  follows: 


“Most  Excellent  Sir:  I  insist  in  considering  that  the  aid  of  jurisdiction 
which,  from  the  superior  authority  of  the  island,  the  consul  of  the  United 
States  again  requires  in  respect  to  the  ship  ‘Bamberg’  and  brig  ‘Allan’ 
should  be  based  or  justified  upon  the  opposition  or  resistance  of  the 
captains  of  those  vessels  to  the  orders  and  instructions  given  them  directly 

bv  the  consul  himself  in  the  circle  of  his  consular  functions.  And  this  not 

%/ 

from  respect  to  the  principle  of  neutrality,  which  has  no  application  nor 
could  be  violated  in  the  present  case,  but  because  his  excellency  the 
governor,  captain  general,  is  not  the  medium  of  communication  between  the 
consul  of  the  United  States  and  the  masters  of  the  vessels  of  his  nation,  nor 
has  there  been  committed  on  board  of  the  ship  ‘Bamberg’  or  the  brig  ‘Allan 
A.  Chapman’  any  act  which  was  a  disturbance  of  order  or  of  the  peace  of 
the  port,  or  which  has  violated  the  laws  of  the  country — the  only  case  that 
would  justify  the  officious  action  of  the  local  authorities  against  the  captains 
and  crews  of  those  vessels.  It  is  very  true  that  every  government  has  the 
exclusive  right  of  prescribing  the  flags  that  their  vessels  are  to  use,  and 
which  they  are  not  to  use;  but  it  is  also  true  that  the  infraction  of  the  laws 
of  a  country,  while  it  does  not  affect  others,  is  only  to  be  proved  in  the 


country  that  made  those  laws.  The  ship 


Bamberg’  and  the  brig 


Allan,’  as 


the  consul  himself  states,  were  received  in  this  port  as  vessels  of  his  nation 
duly  authorized.  Both  have  hoisted  the  flags  of  the  United  States  at  the 
stern,  which  is  the  principal  place  for  the  national  flag;  those  which  are 
said  to  be  used  at  the  same  time  at  the  fore  and  main  mast  heads  have  no 
official  character  or  signification.  If  the  use  of  them  on  any  part  of  a  vessel, 
or  for  whatever  purpose,  constitutes  a  crime  in  the  eyes  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States,  it  should  be  tried  before  the  courts  of  that  nation. 
Had  the  consul  limited  himself  to  ask  that  through  the  captaincy  of  the  port 
the  captain  should  be  ordered  not  to  hoist  those  flags  together  with  the  one 
that  denoted  their  nationality,  he  could  have  easily  obtained  this  proof  of 
deference  to  the  American  flag,  and  of  consideration  to  his  government. 
But  in  lieu  thereof  the  consul  has  condemned  those  vessels  to  deprivation 
of  their  legitimate  flag — a  penalty  which  constitutes  an  indefinite  embargo 
of  the  same  in  this  port,  and  a  simulated  confiscation  of  the  property — a 


268 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


penalty  that  does  not  affect  the  delinquent  captains,  but  the  owners  and 
shippers,  who  may  perhaps  have  no  culpability  in  the  proceedings  of  the 
former.  So  summary  a  proceeding  against  the  property  is  not  in  conformity 
to  our  usages,  and  every  species  of  confiscation  is  forbidden  by  our  laws. 
For  this  reason  the  consul  ought  not  to  deem  it  strange  that  the  superior 
authority  of  this  island  should  hesitate  to  be  officious  in  a  foreign  affair 
which  is  initiated  with  such  grave  proceedings  on  the  part  of  him  who  has 
in  this  place  the  character  of  commercial  agent  to  protect  and  support  the 
interests  of  the  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  not  the  severe  office  of  a 
judge.  It  is  likewise  well  founded  that  if  there  is  responsibility  involved 
in  the  consul’s  action,  it  belongs  solely  to  the  government  of  his  nation  to 
demand  it  of  him;  but  for  the  same  reason  his  and  his  only  should  be  the 
responsibility;  and  the  consul  should  not  unnecessarily  demand  the  foreign 
assistance,  as  the  authority  rendering  it  might  find  itself  involved  therein. 
The  apprehension  of  being  disregarded  by  the  captains  is  not  a  sufficient 
reason  to  justify  that  assistance,  which,  being  extemporaneous,  would  have 
a  character  of  officious  and  voluntary.  As  the  consul  has  already  referred 
the  solution  of  this  affair  to  Washington,  transmitting  the  registers  of  the 
'Bamberg’  and  the  'Allan/  he  might  await  the  resolution  of  his  govern¬ 
ment,  which  may  perhaps  save  all  future  difficulty;  and  to  this  end  it  might 
be  expedient  that  his  excellency  the  governor,  captain  general,  should  also, 
with  a  copy  of  all  the  communications  and  reports,  bring  the  subject  before 
his  excellency  the  minister  of  her  Catholic  Majesty  in  Washington,  in  order 
that  his  excellency  may  be  posted  up  for  the  event  of  any  communication 
being  addressed  to  him  thereupon  by  that  government,  or  may  avail  himself 
of  the  occasion,  should  it  present  itself,  of  avoiding  other  reclamations  of 
the  same  nature  from  the  consul,  if  he  deems  it  expedient,  or  considers  him¬ 
self  authorized  therefor.  Notwithstanding  all  that  is  stated,  your  excellency 
will  be  pleased  to  inform  his  excellency  the  governor,  captain  general,  what 
you  may  deem  most  proper.” 

And  in  conformity  with  what  is  above  set  forth  I  have  the  honbr  of  trans¬ 
cribing  it  to  your  excellency  in  answer,  returning  the  two  documents  that 
your  official  letter  refers  to.  God  preserve  your  excellency  many  years. 

Most  excellent  sir,  in  the  absence  of  his  excellency  the  commanding 
general,  the  2d  in  command. 

MANUEL  SIVILA. 

His  Excellency  The  Governor, 

Captain  General  of  this  island. 


Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 


No.  27.] 

Sir  : 

*  * 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid,  October  9,  1861. 

vt/  yly  yjy  yly 

/Jx  /|X  /Jx  /|X  'jx 


After  having  closed  our  conversation  on  the  Mexican  business,  I  called 
Mr.  Calderon’s  attention  to  a  report  going  through  the  American  and  Euro¬ 
pean  press  that  Spain  was  about  to  recognize  the  independence  of  the 
Southern  Confederacy  and  to  break  up  the  blockade  of  our  southern  ports. 
I  added  that  it  was  impossible  for  me  to  believe  that  Spain  could  entertain 
any  such  intentions,  and  inquired  whether  anything  had  occurred  to  give 
rise  to  such  a  rumor. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


269 


Mr.  Calderon  replied  with  the  strongest  protestations  of  good  faith  and 
friendship  towards  the  United  States.  He  assured  me  that  nothing  could 
be  further  from  the  intentions  of  her  Majesty’s  government  than  to  depart 
from  the  policy  indicated  in  her  Majesty’s  proclamation  of  neutrality.  But, 
he  added,  there  are  things — and,  interrupting  himself,  he  asked  me  whether 
I  had  not,  within  the  last  two  days,  received  despatches  from  my  govern¬ 
ment.  I  answered  in  the  negative.  Then  he  went  to  his  desk  and  took  out 
a  paper,  which  turned  out  to  be  a  copy  of  your  despatch  (No.  30)  addressed 
to  me,  bearing  date  September  18.  This  despatch,  as  he  said,  had  been 
communicated  by  you  to  Mr.  Tassara,  and  Mr.  Tassara  had  sent  it  to  him. 
He  handed  it  to  me,  and  you  may  well  imagine  that  I  was  somewhat  dis¬ 
agreeably  surprised.  Instead  of  my  communicating  this  despatch  to  him, 
he  communicated  it  to  me,  and  I  found  myself  obliged  to  confess  that  I  had 
not  the  least  official  knowledge  of  a  matter  to  which,  according  to  the  con¬ 
tents  of  the  despatch,  my  government  attached  the  highest  importance. 
Mr.  Calderon  informed  me  that  he  had  received  the  document  the  day  before; 
that  he  had  at  once  inquired  whether  any  report  had  been  sent  in  by  the 
captain  general  of  Cuba;  and  that,  there  being  none,  he  was  not  prepared 
to  give  an  answer  to  your  despatch.  I  replied  that  I  would  not  ask  for  an 
answer  until  I  should  have  received  the  original  of  your  instructions  and 
the  reports  of  our  consular  officers  on  the  Island  of  Cuba;  that  as  soon  as  I 
should  be  in  possession  of  these  documents,  I  would  lay  them  before  him, 
and  then  discuss  the  matter  with  him  in  all  its  bearings.  He  replied  that 
this  would  be  agreeable  to  him,  but  that  it  would  be  impossible  for  him  to 
give  a  definite  answer  without  having  heard  from  the  captain  general  of 
Cuba. 

»J/  O/  \lx  vly  vly  vL<  vL* 

^  ^ 

I  am,  sir,  with  the  greatest  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  SCHURZ. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  30.]  I  LEGATION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 

Madrid,  October  17,  1861. 

Sir  :  After  having  waited  for  the  arrival  of  your  despatch  No.  30  until 
yesterday,  I  deemed  it  necessary  to  make  an  effort  to  obtain  an  answer  from 
Mr.  Calderon  as  to  the  general  merits  of  the  case.  I  therefore  called  on  Mr. 
Cable  ron  yesterday,  and  have  the  honor  to  transmit  a  report  of  our  conver¬ 
sation. 

I  noticed,  in  the  course  of  that  conversation,  that  Mr.  Calderon,  although 
he  denied  the  receipt  of  official  communications  from  the  captain  general  of 
Cuba,  seemed  to  be  well  informed  of  what  had  happened  there,  while  I  had 
no  other  knowledge  of  the  facts  referred  to  in  your  despatch  than  a  general 
impression  gathered  from  newspaper  statements,  which,  in  this  case,  had 
been  distressingly  indefinite  and  contradictory. 

You  will  notice  that,  in  my  conversation  with  Mr.  Calderon,  I  confined 
myself  entirely  to  putting  questions,  partly  because  I  was  ignorant  of  what 
actually  had  happened,  and  partly  because  I  consider  it  impolitic,  under 
present  circumstances,  to  join  issue  with  foreign  governments  on  things 


270 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


which  may  or  may  not  happen.  The  latter  is  especially  applicable  to  the 
case  under  consideration. 

«!/  O/  v[/  >1/  >1/  yl/ 

'T'  'T' 


I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  G. 


C.  SCHURZ. 


Memorandum  of  a  conversation  between  Mr.  Calderon  Collantes  and  Mr.  Schurz 

on  October  16,  1861. 

Mr.  Schurz  informed  Mr.  Calderon  that  the  original  of  Mr.  Seward’s  despatch 
[No.  30,]  a  copy  of  which  had  been  forwarded  by  Mr.  Tassara  to  him,  (Mr. 
Calderon,)  had  not  reached  the  American  legation,  and  that  he  was  therefore 
unable  to  lay  before  Mr.  Calderon  the  reports  of  the  consular  officers  of  the 
United  States  alluded  to  in  the  despatch;  but  that  he  considered  it  important 
that  a  matter  which  was  so  apt  to  lead  to  disagreeable  consequences  should 
be  promptly  disposed  of,  and  that  he  therefore  requested  Mr.  Calderon  to 
state  the  views  of  the  Spanish  government  in  a  general  manner,  even  if  it 
was  impossible,  in  the  absence  of  special  information,  to  judge  of  the  exact 
merits  of  the  cases  which  had  occasioned  Mr.  Seward’s  despatch. 

Mr.  Calderon  replied  that  he  had  received  no  official  communication  on  this 
subject  from  the  captain  general  of  Cuba,  but  that  he  was  prepared  to  make 
the  following  statement: 

Spain  had  followed,  in  relation  to  vessels  coming  from  the  ports  of  the  so- 
called  Southern  Confederacy,  the  same  rules  of  action  which  she  had  adopted 
in  the  case  of  vessels  clearing  from  the  ports  of  the  kingdom  of  the  Two 
Sicilies  after  the  assumption  of  royal  authority  in  that  kingdom  by  King 
Victor  Emanuel.  It  was  well  known  that  Spain  had  not  recognized  the  so- 
called  kingdom  of  Italy,  and  that  the  consular  agents  of  King  Francis  I 
were  still  exercising  their  functions  in  the  Spanish  ports.  Nevertheless, 
Spain  did  not  oblige  the  masters  of  vessels  arriving  in  Spanish  ports  from 
the  ports  of  the  kingdom  of  Naples  to  submit  to  the  authority  of  the  consuls 
of  Francis  I,  but  permitted  them  to  address  themselves  either  to  these  or  to 
the  consular  officers  of  King  Victor  Emanuel,  as  they  saw  fit.  But  this  per¬ 
mission  given  to  vessels  coming  from  the  Neapolitan  ports  to  transact  their 
business  with  the  consuls  of  Victor  Emanuel  was  by  no  means  intended  to 
imply  a  recognition  of  the  Italian  kingdom;  for  Spain  recognized  in  the 
kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies  no  other  authority  as  lawful  and  legitimate 
than  that  of  King  Francis  I. 

In  like  manner  it  was  permitted  to  vessels  coming  from  the  ports  now 
under  the  control  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  upon  their  arrival  in 
Spanish  ports,  to  address  themselves  to  the  consular  authorities  of  the 
United  States,  if  they  saw  fit  to  do  so;  but,  as  in  the  case  of  vessels  coming 
from  Neapolitan  ports,  Spain  did  not  think  proper  to  oblige  them  to  do  so. 
This  practice,  however,  was  by  no  means  intended  to  imply,  in  any  manner, 
a  recognition  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  as  an  independent  nation. 

But  in  the  case  of  these  vessels  the  action  of  Spain  was  still  more  justi¬ 
fiable  than  in  the  case  of  the  Neapolitan  vessels.  The  government  of  the 
United  States  was,  with  its  naval  forces,  blockading  the  southern  ports,  and 
it  was  their  business  to  see  to  it  that  no  vessels  should  escape  from  the  ports 
thus  guarded.  It  could  not  be  expected  of  Spain  to  suppty  the  deficiencies 
of  the  maritime  police  of  the  United  States,  nor  was  it  reasonable  to  expect 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


271 


that  she  should  turn  away  from  her  ports  vessels  engaged  in  ordinary  peace¬ 
ful  commerce,  and  which  had  not  been  able  to  obtain  regular  papers  even  if 
they  had  wanted  to  do  so.  Nor  could  Spain  oblige  such  vessels  by  force  to 
submit  to  the  authority  of  the  consular  officers  of  the  United  States.  Spain 
was  acting  solely  with  a  view  to  the  protection  of  her  commercial  interests, 
and  nothing  else. 

Mr.  Schurz  replied  that  the  only  ground  upon  which  such  proceedings  could 
legitimately  be  placed  was  that  of  necessity,  and  asked  Mr.  Calderon  whether 
this  was  the  ground  taken  by  the  government  of  Spain. 

Mr.  Calderon  replied  that  it  was.  It  was  nothing  but  an  ex  necessitate 
proceeding,  and  that  as  soon  as  that  necessity  ceased  the  Spanish  govern¬ 
ment  would  cease  to  follow  that  rule  of  action. 

Mr.  Schurz  asked  whether  the  Spanish  government  would  admit  into  its 
ports  vessels  without  papers  regularly  issued  by  the  authorities  of  the  United 
States  as  soon  as  the  authority  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
should  be  re-established  in  the  southern  ports. 

Mr.  Calderon  answered  that  they  would  not,  because  then  the  necessity 
would  cease.  But  he  would  not  admit  the  ground  taken  by  Mr.  Seward  in 
his  despatch,  that  the  admission  of  vessels  without  regular  papers  under  the 
actual  state  of  things  depended  on  a  “concession”  on  the  part  of  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States,  which  might  be  granted  or  withdrawn  at 
pleasure.  The  Spanish  government  claimed  a  right  to  adhere  to  its  rule  of 
action  as  long  as  the  necessity  existed.  But  he  protested  most  emphatically 
against  the  construction  placed  upon  this  rule  as  implying  a  recognition  of 
the  so-called  Confederate  States;  the  government  of  Spain  did  not  think  of 
taking  such  a  step  and  of  interrupting  the  friendly  relations  existing  between 
the  two  countries,  the  preservation  of  which  was  undoubtedly  considered 
important  by  the  United  States,  and  had  always  been  sincerely  desired  by 
Spain. 

Mr.  Schurz  replied  that,  as  to  these  peaceful  relations,  the  United  States 
desired  to  preserve  them  with  equal  sincerity,  not  because  they  were  afraid 
of  a  conflict,  but  because  they  loved  peace.  He  added  that  if  Spain  in  this 
case  followed  an  established  policy,  founded  on  precedent,  he  did  not  wisli 
to  carry  the  discussion  further  at  present,  especially  in  the  absence  of  all 
reliable  information  as  to  the  recent  occurrences  in  the  ports  of  Cuba;  but  he 
wished  to  say  that  while  the  United  States  would  set  up  no  unreasonble 
pretensions,  any  act  on  the  part  of  a  foreign  government  which  might  be 
justly  interpreted  as  a  recognition  of  the  independence  of  the  States  now  in 
rebellion  against  the  legitimate  government  of  the  North  American  republic 
would  necessarily  and  inevitably  lead  to  a  rupture. 

Mr.  Calderon  repeated  that  no  such  intention  was  entertained  by  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  Spain,  which  entertained  none  but  friendly  feelings  towards  the 
United  States.  He  informed  Mr.  Schurz  that  he  was  about  to  address  a 
despatch  on  this  subject  to  Mr.  Tassara,  which  the  latter  would  be  instructed 
to  read  to  Mr.  Seward. 


Mr.  Schurz  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  33.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Madrid ,  October  20,  1861. 

Sir:  Last  night  I  called  upon  Mr.  Calderon,  for  the  purpose  of  reading  to 
him  the  memorandum  of  our  conversation  of  the  16th  instant.  After  having 
suggested  some  additions,  which  were  forthwith  incorporated  into  the  report, 


272 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


he  approved  it  as  correct.  He  informed  me  that  he  had  meanwhile  received  • 
an  official  communication  from  the  captain  general  of  Cuba  on  the  occur¬ 
rences  which  had  occasioned  your  despatch  No.  30,  and  that  he  would  read 
it  to  me  at  our  next  interview.  He  wanted  to  prove  to  me  that  the  Spanish 
government  had  acted  with  entire  fairness  and  loyalty  in  this  transaction. 

I  informed  him  that  the  London  “Times,”  of  October  16,  contained  the  fol¬ 
lowing  telegraphic  despatch: 

“  There  are  several  vessels  loading  ammunition  at  Havana  for  the  con¬ 
federates.” 


And  asked  him  whether  he  knew  anything  of  this. 

Mr.  Calderon  exclaimed  at  once,  with  great  warmth:  “  That  is  impossible; 
it  cannot  be  true.  This  would  be  a  violation  of  the  royal  decree  of  the  17th 
of  June,  and  will  never  be  tolerated.  General  Serrano  cannot  have  per¬ 
mitted  this .” 

I  replied  that  I  was  happy  to  hear  him  express  his  opinion  so  unequivo¬ 
cally  and  emphatically;  for  it  would  be  impossible  for  the  government  of  the 
United  States  to  look  on  quietly  while  the  Cuban  ports  were  used  as  war 
depots  for  the  rebels. 

Mr.  Calderon  assured  me  repeatedly  that  this  telegraphic  despatch  would 
most  certainly  turn  out  to  be  unfounded,  and  reiterated  in  very  strong 
language  the  assurance  of  the  loyal  and  friendly  feelings  of  the  Spanish 
government  towards  the  United  States,  and  of  its  firm  determination  to  ad¬ 
here  faithfully  to  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  royal  decree. 

I  am,  sir,  with  high  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  SCHURZ. 


Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D.  C. 


Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Schurz. 


[Extract.] 


No.  46.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  2  (No.  13)  was  duly  received. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 


I  am  gratified  to  learn  that  the  public  opinion  around  you  is  less  injurious 
than  formerly.  I  trust  that  it  is  the  beginning  of  a  better  understanding  in 
Europe  of  the  real  character  and  determination  of  the  American  people. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

F.  W.  SEWARD, 

Acting  Secretary. 


Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  <$rc.,  Sf-c.,  <$ta,  Madrid. 


Acting  Secretary  of  State  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  47.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  5  (No.  14)  was  duly  received.  It  is  very 
interesting,  and  I  deeply  regret  that,  owing  to  its  having  been  accidentally 
mislaid,  it  failed  to  receive  earlier  attention. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


273 


Spain  is  engaged  in  her  proceedings  against  Mexico.  The  United  States 
are  repressing  an  insurrection  which,  while  it  has  attained  formidable  dimen¬ 
sions  at  home,  reveals  itself  abroad  in  efforts  to  instigate  foreign  intervention. 
While  it  would  be  eminently  desirable  to  make  new  friends,  or  at  least  to 
fortify  existing  friendships  with  foreign  nations,  the  circumstances  are  so 
unpropitious  as  to  make  us  content  with  averting  new  misunderstandings 
and  consequent  collisions. 

You  have  correctly  interpreted  to  Mr.  Calderon  Collantes  the  public  senti¬ 
ment  of  this  country  in  regard  to  Spain.  We  not  only  seek  no  controversy 
with  her,  but  are  desirous  to  stand  in  the  most  friendly  relations  towards 
her.  We  are  watchful,  as  we  must  be,  of  every  fact  or  circumstance  that 
seems  to  indicate  a  disposition  on  her  part  to  favor  or  encourage  the  insur¬ 
rection  with  which  we  are  contending.  We  know  our  ability  to  maintain 
the  integrity  of  the  republic,  and  we  intend  to  maintain  it.  We  desire 
that  when  it  shall  have  been  completely  re-established  it  shall  be  found 
that  nothing  has  been  done  in  the  meantime  by  Spain,  or  by  any  foreign 
nation,  to  serve  as  causes  for  alienation.  We  are  a  peaceful  state.  Indeed, 
we  think  that  the  American  Union  is  the  guarantee  of  peace  to  the  whole 
world.  But  like  every  other  state  we  are  jealous  of  our  rights,  and  must 
maintain  them. 

Mr.  Calderon  Collantes  could  hardly  have  a  better  assurance  of  our  desire 
for  peace  with  Spain  than  the  fact,  which  you  might  communicate  to  him, 
that  even  the  unjust  and  ungenerous  strictures  of  the  Spanish  press,  which 
so  naturally  and  so  justly  drew  out  your  remonstrance,  failed  to  excite  the 
least  sensibility  on  the  part  of  this  government. 

This  government  neither  has  now,  nor  is  likely  to  have,  any  schemes,  or, 
indeed,  any  purpose,  of  conquest  or  aggrandizement.  It  seeks  to  extend  its 
influence  throughout  this  hemisphere  and  the  world,  not  by  the  sword,  but 
by  commerce  and  by  postal  communication.  It  has  practically  guaranteed 
Cuba  to  Spain  for  many  years  heretofore,  and  it  has  no  design  against  that 
possession  or  any  other  possession  of  Spain  now;  but  it  will  not  look  with 
favor  upon  any  policy  that  shall  make  that  island  the  fulcrum  of  a  lever  for 
overthrowing  either  this  Union  or  the  institutions  of  human  freedom  and 
self-government  which  are  identified  with  its  existence. 

We  want  a  commercial  treaty  with  Spain,  and  are  willing  to  adopt  a 
liberal  principle  of  reciprocity  to  secure  it;  but  we  shall  not  urge  such  a 
measure  now,  when  both  parties  are  too  deeply  engaged  to  consider  the 
matter  with  the  intense  attention  necessary  to  a  mutual  understanding  upon 
points  so  difficult. 

We  should  be  glad  to  effect  a  measure  for  the  adjustment  of  mutual  com¬ 
mercial  claims,  but  we  cannot  admit  that  the  Amistad  claim  has  any  founda¬ 
tion  in  justice  or  moral  right.  It  is  for  Spain  to  refuse  to  treat  with  us  upon 
this  ground  if  she  thinks  it  sufficient.  We  can  only  regret  it,  and  wait  for 
her  to  reconsider  the  subject. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 


Carl  Schcrz,  Esq.,  <$pe.,  <5^- 


F.  W.  SEWARD, 

Acting  Secretary. 


274 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No.  50.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  9,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatch  of  October  20  (No.  33)  has  been  received. 

I  trust  that,  with  the  good  disposition  manifested  by  Mr.  Calderon  Col- 
lantes  on  the  occasion  you  have  described,  we  shall  be  able  to  avert  serious 
embarrassments  of  our  affairs  in  the  colonies  of  Spain. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  fyc.,  Sfc.,  tyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Schurz. 

No  52.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  11,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  October  IT  (No.  30)  has  been  received.  I  am 
surprised  at  the  miscarriage  of  my  despatch  No.  30.  I  have,  however, 
directed  a  copy  of  it  to  be  sent  to  you.  Mr.  Tassara  has  shown  me  certain 
explanations  made  to  him  by  the  captain  general  of  Cuba,  and  I  have  in 
turn  modified  the  opinion  which  I  had  formed  concerning  his  action  in  rela¬ 
tion  to  the  matter  complained  of  by  the  vice-consul  general.  I  do  not  think 
it  necessary  to  press  the  subject  of  my  despatch  No.  30  under  these  circum¬ 
stances.  With  the  gradual  action  of  the  government  in  restoring  its  au¬ 
thority  at  home,  I  look  to  see  less  disposition  to  treat  it  with  disrespect 
abroad. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Carl  Schurz,  Esq.,  fyc.,  tyc.,  fyc. 


ROME. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  King. 

No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  April  29,  1861. 

Sir:  I  am  to  instruct  you  what  to  do,  and  of  course  what  not  to  do,  as 
resident  minister  of  the  United  States  at  Rome.  In  order  to  understand  the 
wishes  and  expectations  of  the  President,  please  consider  first  the  condition 
of  Rome,  and  then  the  condition  of  the  United  States. 

Rome,  to  a  degree  hardly  comprehended  in  this  country,  is  protected  by 
the  veneration  of  a  large  portion  of  mankind  for  his  Holiness  as  the  ex¬ 
pounder  of  faith  and  the  guardian  of  religion.  Nevertheless,  his  govern¬ 
ment  is  surrounded  by  the  elements  of  political  revolution. 

The  United  States  are  on  the  verge  of  civil  war.  It  happens  to  them  now, 
as  it  happened  to  ancient  Rome,  and  has  happened  to  many  other  republics, 
that  they  must  make  the  trial  whether  liberty  can  be  preserved  while 
dominion  is  widely  extended.  What  then  shall  we  say  or  do  in  regard  to 
Rome,  or  what  ought  Rome  to  say  or  do  in  regard  to  us  ? 

Assure  the  government  of  his  Holiness  that  the  President  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States  desire  to  cultivate  with  it  the  most  cordial  and  friendly 
relations;  that  we  will  not  violate  the  friendship  already  so  happily  existing 
by  any  intervention  in  the  domestic  affairs  of  the  States  of  the  Church. 
Assure  his  Holiness  that  it  is  the  settled  habit  of  this  government  to  leave 
to  all  other  countries  the  unquestioned  regulation  of  their  own  internal 
concerns,  being  convinced  that  intrusion  by  a  foreign  nation  anywhere  tends 
only  to  embarrass  rather  than  aid  the  best  designs  of  the  friends  of  freedom, 
religion  and  humanity,  by  impairing  the  unity  of  the  state  exclusively 
interested. 

What  ought  Rome  to  do  in  regard  to  the  United  States?  Just  what  I 
have  thus  said  they  will  do  in  regard  to  Rome.  We  could  not  ask  or  con¬ 
sent  to  receive  more,  and  the  government  of  his  Holiness  will  not  propose 
to  do  less,  for  he  is  a  friend  to  peace,  to  good  order,  and  to  the  cause  of 
human  nature,  which  is  now,  as  it  always  has  been,  our  cause. 

Let  the  government  of  Rome  set  this  example  and  exercise  its  great  in¬ 
fluence  in  favor  of  a  course  of  natural  justice  among  nations,  and  the  United 
States  will  still  remain  at  peace  with  the  whole  world,  and  continue  here¬ 
after,  as  hitherto,  to  be  the  home  of  civil  and  religious  liberty,  and  an  asylum 
for  the  exiled  and  the  oppressed. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Rufus  King,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  Home. 


276 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Stockton. 

No.  13.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  April  30,  1861. 

Sir:  An  instruction,  numbered  2,  and  dated  the  29th  instant,  has  been 
addressed  to  your  successor,  Mr.  King,  of  which,  as  it  relates  to  a  subject  of 
present  moment,  I  have  deemed  it  expedient  to  send  you  a  transcript,  which 
you  will  find  enclosed.  It  is  thought  desirable  that  the  views  therein 
expressed  should  be  communicated  to  the  Papal  government  without  delay. 
I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD 

John  P.  Stockton,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Borne. 


Mr.  Stockton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Washington,  September  14,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  I  left  my  post  of  duty  on  my  re¬ 
turn  home  on  the  6th  day  of  June  last.  But  before  doing  so,  according  to 
the  tenor  of  my  despatch,  (No.  48,)  I  communicated  the  contents  of  the  in¬ 
structions  of  the  department  to  Mr.  King  (No.  2)  to  the  government  of  his 
holiness 

I  translated  all  those  points  of  the  despatch  which  I  thought  necessary 
into  Italian,  and  left  it  with  his  eminence  as  a  memoranda.  1  informed  his 
eminence,  the  secretary  of  state,  that  although  the  despatch  was  addressed 
to  my  successor,  I  should  be  most  happy  to  take  charge  of  a  reply,  as  Mr. 
King  had  not  yet  arrived  in  Rome.  His  eminence  said  that  he  could  not 
know  the  contents  of  instructions  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  to 
Mr.  King  except  privately.  Officially  Mr.  King  should  be  received  before 
any  communication  directed  to  him  could  be  noticed.  It  was  impossible  for 
him  to  reply;  a  reply  was  not  appropriate  to  the  occasion. 

I  suggested  that  he  could  state  to  me  privately  his  views,  which  I  would 
communicate  to  the  government,  although  my  official  position  was  ended. 

His  eminence  consented  to  this,  and  then  said,  in  substance,  as  follows: 
He  said  that  the  Catholics  of  the  United  States,  as  Catholics,  as  a  church, 
would  take  no  part  in  the  matter;  it  would  not  be  proper  for  them  to  do  so. 
As  citizens  he  had  no  doubt  they  would  all  feel  a  great  concern  at  our  in¬ 
ternal  dissensions.  He  added,  you  are  aware  that  the  government  of  his 
holiness  concerns  itself  mainly  in  spiritual  matters,  but  we  are  the  support¬ 
ers  of  law  and  order  everywhere.  He  said  he  regarded  the  United  States 
as  a  great  and  free  country,  and  he  hoped  that  I  would  be  assured  that  the 
kind  sentiments  of  our  government  to  the  Holy  See  were  appreciated  and 
reciprocated. 

I  do  not  pretend  to  give  either  the  words  or  a  verbal  translation  of  the 
expressions  of  his  eminence,  but  I  am  sure  that  I  have  fairly  stated  the  sub¬ 
stance  of  the  conversation. 

Perhaps  it  is  not  improper  for  me,  in  concluding  my  mission,  to  say  that 
I  parted  from  his  holiness  with  a  profound  sense  of  the  kindness  and  •  i>i, side- 
ration  1  had  always  received  from  him,  and  with  sentiments  of  the  highest 
regard  and  esteem  for  his  character. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  very  truly  yours, 

JOHN  P.  STOCKTON, 

Late  United  States  Minister  at  Rome. 

lion.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


RUSSIA. 


Mr.  Seioard  to  Mr.  Clay. 


No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  6,  1861. 

Sir  :  Nations,  like  individuals,  have  three  prominent  wants;  first,  freedom 
secondly,  prosperity;  thirdly,  friends. 

The  United  States  early  secured  the  two  first  objects  by  the  exercise  of 
courage  and  enterprise.  But,  although  they  have  always  practiced  singular 
moderation,  they  nevertheless  have  been  slow  in  winning  friends. 

Russia  presents  an  exceptional  case.  That  power  was  an  early,  and  it 
has  always  been  a  constant  friend.  This  relationship  between  two  nations, 
so  remote  and  so  unlike,  has  excited  much  surprise,  but  the  explanation  is 
obvious. 

Russia,  like  the  United  States,  is  an  improving  and  expanding  empire. 
Its  track  is  eastward,  while  that  of  the  United  States  is  westward.  The  two 
nations,  therefore,  never  come  into  rivalry  or  conflict.  Each  carries 
civilization  to  the  new  regions  it  enters,  and  each  finds  itself  occasionally 
resisted  by  states  jealous  of  its  prosperity,  or  alarmed  by  its  aggrandize¬ 
ment.  Russia  and  the  United  States  may  remain  good  friends  until,  each 
having  made  a  circuit  of  half  the  globe  in  opposite  directions,  they  shall 
meet  and  greet  each  other  in  the  region  where  civilization  first  began,  and 
where,  after  so  many  ages,  it  has  become  now  lethargic  and  helpless.  It 
will  be  your  pleasing  duty  to  confirm  and  strengthen  these  traditional  rela¬ 
tions  of  amity  and  friendship. 

Assure  his  Imperial  Majesty  that  the  President  and  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  observed  with  admiration  and  sympathy  the  great  and 
humane  efforts  he  has  so  recently  made  for  the  material  and  moral  improve¬ 
ment  of  his  empire  by  the  extension  of  telegraphs  and  railroads,  and  by 
removing  the  disabilities  of  slavery. 

Make  it  your  duty  to  inquire  whether  the  sluggish  course  of  commerce 
between  the  twTo  nations  cannot  be  quickened,  and  its  volume  increased. 
Russia  is  capable  of  receiving  cotton  and  tobacco  from  us  in  much  larger 
quantities  than  we  now  send.  The  former  is  not  a  staple  of  that  country, 
and  although  it  produces  tobacco,  yet  not  of  so  high  a  quality  as  that  which 
we  send  abroad,  and  of  which  Russia  consumes  more  than  any  other  nation. 

We  can  well  receive  from  that  country  increased  quantities  of  hemp  and 
flax,  tallow,  and  other  productions  in  exchange. 

Russia  is  liberal  to  our  inventors,  engineers,  and  machinists  ;  but  vicious 
adventurers  too  often  abuse  this  generous  encouragement  by  fraudulent 
practices.  See  if  you  can  devise  a  plan  for  correcting  this  evil.  I  suggest 
that  it  might  be  done  by  effecting  free  interchange  of  newspapers  and  scien¬ 
tific  journals. 

A  Russian  landing  at  New  York  can  cross  this  western  continent  without 
once  being  required  to  exhibit  a  passport.  Why  will  not  Russia  extend  the 
same  hospitality  to  us,  and  enable  the  American  citizen,  when  he  debarks  at 
Revel,  to  cross  the  eastern  continent  in  like  manner  unquestioned.  The 
American  abroad  is  not  more  than  the  Russian  a  propagandist,  and  while 
Russia  pursues  the  general  policy  of  the  present  reign  it  can  have  nothing 
to  fear  from  American  influences. 

In  another  paper  which  accompanies  this  your  attention  is  especially  di- 


278 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


rected  to  the  subject  of  amendments  of  the  international  code  of  maritime 
law  in  regard  to  neutrals,  proposed  in  1856  by  the  congress  which  was  then 
sitting  at  Paris,  of  which  body  Russia  was  a  member. 

If  nations  were  now,  as  in  ancient  times,  morally  independent  and  unsocial, 
the  President  would  not  have  occasion  to  address  our  representatives  in 
Europe  on  the  painful  events  which  are  subjects  of  intense  solicitude  at 
home.  But  the  world  has,  in  a  measured  degree,  become  one  commonwealth. 
Nations  favor  or  discourage  political  changes  in  other  nations,  and  exercise 
influences  upon  their  success  and  fortunes,  sometimes  from  interest,  some¬ 
times  from  sympathy,'  and  sometimes  from  caprice. 

Although  this  general  fact  is  so  well  understood,  yet  the  President  indulges 
so  uncompromising  a  sense  of  the  national  dignity  and  honor,  that  he,  never 
theless,  would  not  suffer  a  word  on  the  subject  to  escape  from  the  lips  of  one 
o:  our  ministers  abroad,  if  our  discontented  fellow-citizens  who  have  raised 
the  standard  of  insurrection  had  not  sent  out  their  agents  to  propitiate 
foreign  powers  and  engage  their  co-operation  in  the  desperate  attempt  they 
are  making  to  overthrow  the  institutions  and  the  liberties  of  the  American 
people. 

You  will,  of  course,  meet  such  agents  in  Russia.  They  have  some  advan 
tages  in  Europe  of  which  you  should  be  warned. 

What  is  now  the  insurrectionary  party  in  the  United  States  has  been  for 
near  forty  years,  and  until  the  fourth  day  of  March  last,  the  dominant  party 
in  the  administration  of  this  government.  It  has  acquaintances  and  friend¬ 
ships  in  high  places  there,  the  growth  of  long  intercourse  in  foreign  courts, 
with  the  prestige  of  political  authority.  The  late  minister  to  Russia  re¬ 
turned,  however,  to  be  the  governor  of  South  Carolina  at  the  moment  when 
that  State  was  in  the  very  act  of  inaugurating  the  present  revolution. 

W1  len  those  agents  shall  present  themselves  at  St.  Petersburg,  his  Impe¬ 
rial  Majesty,  before  granting  them  a  hearing,  will  naturally  address  himself 
to  you,  and  will  ask  you:  What  is  the  cause  of  this  revolution?  What  is 
its  object?  Why  does  the  government  resist  it?  What  is  the  present  con¬ 
dition  of  the  revolution,  and  what  are  its  prospects?  What  are  the  probable 
consequences  of  its  success,  or  of  its  failure?  And,  finally,  what  does  the 
the  President  desire  or  expect  from  his  Imperial  Majesty  in  regard  to  it  ? 

The  President  will  not  forget,  nor  will  he  allow  you  to  forget,  that  he  is 
the  magistrate  of  the  insurrectionary,  as  he  is  also  of  the  loval  States,  and 
in  all  his  dealings  concerning  the  plotters,  aiders,  and  abettors  of  this  great 
conspiracy  he  will  constantly  remember  that  the  people  in  whose  name  they 
act,  and  whose  power  they  abuse,  are  still  citizens  of  the  republic.  He  be¬ 
lieves,  however,  that  you  may  answer  all  the  questions  thus  contemplated 
without  compromising  the  impartiality  of  this  government,  or  the  dignity 
and  honor  of  the  federal  Union. 

As  to  the  cause  of  the  revolution,  you  will  inform  the  Russian  government 
that  African  slavery  was  found  existing  in  nearly  all  the  States,  when,  sev¬ 
enty  years  ago,  they  met,  and  by  a  written  Constitution  established  that 
Union.  It  was  expected  that  under  the  operation  of  moral,  social,  and  po¬ 
litical  influences  then  existing  the  practice  of  slavery  would  soon  cease. 
The  foreign  slave  trade  was  adopted  to  favor  that  end,  while  the  vacant 
common  domain  which  lay  between  the  Alleghany  mountains  and  the  Mis¬ 
sissippi  river  w-as  shut  up  against  slavery  by  legislation  then  believed  to 
be  effective  and  eternal. 

Cotton  soon  afterward  became  an  object  of  great  commercial  demand;  the 
soil  and  climate  of  those  States  of  tin’s  Union  which  are  situate  near  and 
upon  the  Gulf  of  Mexico  were  favorable  to  its  growth,  and  African  slave 
labor  existed  therein  practically  to  the  exclusion  of  the  labor  of  free  white 
men. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


279 


The  raising1  of  slaves  of  the  African  race  to  supply  the  wants  of  the  cotton 
growing  States  became  a  prominent  economical  interest  in  the  grain  and 
tobacco  growing  States  adjacent  to  the  former  class  of  States.  The  interest 
of  slavery  became  at  once  the  basis  of  the  policy,  and  even  of  the  polity  of 
these  two  classes  of  States,  and  by  political,  social,  and  commercial  con¬ 
nexions  those  interests  secured  a  strong  and  even  controlling  influence 
throughout  the  whole  Union,  and  even  in  all  foreign  commercial  countries. 
This  interest  of  slavery  was  jealous  and  apprehensive  of  danger  from  the 
growth  of  the  democratic  element  of  free  white  labor,  which  all  the  while  has 
been  constantly  augmented  by  native  increase- and  immigration  from  Europe. 

The  several  States  in  the  Union,  whatever  be  their  population,  enjoy  equal 
representation  in  the  Senate.  Congress  may,  and  from  manifest  causes  must, 
admit  new  States  into  the  Union.  The  slave  holding  interest  naturally  de¬ 
sired  to  extend  slavery  and  multiply  slave  States.  The  free  States  neces¬ 
sarily  desired,  as  they  constitutionally  might,  to  prevent  the  extension  of 
slavery  in  regions  where  it  did  not  exist  or  had  been  abolished,  and  so  to 
multiply  free  States. 

The  acquisitions  of  new  domain  by  purchases  from  France,  Spain,  and 
Mexico,  to  be  the  seat  of  future  States,  opened  a  wide  theatre  for  this  con¬ 
test,  and  the  contest  itself  by  degrees  came  to  be  a  chief  feature  in  the  de¬ 
bates  of  Congress,  and  in  the  canvasses  of  the  popular  elections. 

The  interest  of  slavery  was  consolidated  and  compact  in  the  slave  States, 
and  acquired  great  power  by  threatening  that  if  overruled  those  States 
would  secede  and  dissolve  the  Union,  which  the  free  States  traditionally,  as 
well  as  justly,  regarded  as  fatal  to  the  prosperity,  safety,  and  happiness  of 
the  whole  American  people.  Statesmen  of  all  classes  and  all  parties,  on 
that  ground,  continually  conceded,  and  Congress  and  the  judiciary  constantly 
compromised  with  the  slave  interest,  in  opposition  to  steadily  advancing 
popular  convictions  of  right,  duty,  and  patriotism,  until  at  last  all  legal 
barriers  against  the  extension  of  slavery  were,  in  one  way  or  in  another, 
thrown  down.  Transactions  so  unnatural  roused  the  interest  opposed  to 
slavery  to  renewed  effort  in  the  popular  election  of  the  last  year,  and  that 
election  resulted  in  the  choice  of  the  present  incumbent  for  the  office  of 
President  of  the  United  States,  although  without  a  majority  of  either  house 
of  Congress  identified  with  this  interest. 

The  party  of  slavery,  which  had  thus,  for  the  first  time,  been  distinctly, 
though  not  completely,  unsuccessful  in  a  popular  election,  instantly,  and 
four  months  before  the  constitutional  period  assigned  for  the  inauguration 
of  the  new  President,  took  an  appeal  from  the  verdict  of  the  people,  rendered 
through  the  ballot-box,  to  the  sword,  and  organized  a  revolution  with  civil 


war. 


Such  was  the  cause  of  the  revolution.  Its  object  is  to  create  a  nation 
built  upon  the  principle  that  African  slavery  is  necessary,  just,  wise,  and 
beneficent,  and  that  it  may  and  must  be  expanded  over  the  central  portion 
of  the  American  continent  and  islands  without  check  or  resistance,  at  what¬ 
ever  cost  and  sacrifice  to  the  welfare  and  happiness  of  the  human  race. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  resists  this  revolution  for  reasons 
too  many  to  be  hastily  set  forth. 

It  is  absolutely  unnecessary.  All  existing  interests  of  slavery  are  pro¬ 
tected  now,  as  heretofore,  by  our  federal  and  State  constitutions,  sufficiently 
to  prevent  the  destruction  or  molestation  of  the  institution  of  slavery  where 
it  exists,  by  federal  or  foreign  intervention,  without  the  consent  of  the  par¬ 
ties  concerned.  The  policy  of  fortifying  and  extending  slavery  in  regions 
where  it  has  no  existence  is  injurious,  vicious,  and  eminently  dangerous  to 
our  own  country  and  to  mankind. 


280 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Dismemberment  of  the  Union,  however  effected  and  for  whatever  cause, 
would  be  destruction  of  the  safety,  happiness,  and  welfare  of  the  whole 
American  people,  and  would,  by  its  influence,  render  the  present  establish¬ 
ment  of  any  popular  form  of  government  impracticable  in  an  age  and  in  a 
region  where  no  other  than  just  such  a  form  of  government  is  known  or 
could  be  tolerated. 

The  condition  of  the  revolution  is  this,  namely:  In  the  United  States  the 
people  always  exercise  a  direct  and  potential  influence  upon  the  government. 
They  were  at  first  incredulous  of  the  fact  that  a  revolution  so  unnecessary, 
so  unnatural,  and  so  fatal,  was  seriously  intended.  They  saw  it  move 
steadily  on,  but  were  beguiled  by  the  appeals  of  mediators,  who  proposed 
at  once  to  avert  disunion  and  to  prevent  the  calamity  of  civil  war.  The 
government  was  temporarily  demoralized  by  the  presence  of  the  conspirators 
in  controlling  numbers  in  the  administration,  in  Congress,  in  the  army,  in 
the  navy,  and  in  every  department  of  the  public  service.  But  at  last,  when 
it  became  clearly  revealed  that  nothing  less  than  subversion  of  the  federal 
republic  would  satisfy  the  insurgents,  and  that  the  forbearance  and  modera¬ 
tion  of  the  government  towards  them  were  abused  to  the  purpose  of  pre¬ 
paring  a  deadly  and  desolating  war,  the  loyalty  of  the  people  suddenly 
awakened;  the  government,  sustained  by  popular  enthusiasm  and  energy, 
has  put  forth  all  the  necessary  power;  the  revolution  has  at  once  been 
checked,  and  it  is  no  longer  doubtful  that  it  will  be  promptly  and  effectually 
suppressed. 

It  had  its  origin  in  disappointment;  and  it  depends  for  continuance  only 
on  popular  passions,  the  occasion  for  which  has  passed  away,  while  such 
passions  are  not  in  harmony  with  the  character,  sentiments,  and  habits  of 
the  American  people. 

When  it  shall  be  seen,  as  it  soon  will  be,  that  the  effort  to  overthrow  the 
government  is  hopeless,  the  misguided  citizens  who  have  joined  themselves 
to  the  revolutionary  standard  will  resume  their  accustomed  habits  of  reason 
and  reflection,  and  the  Union,  having  surmounted  a  new  and  formidable 
danger,  will  be  stronger  than  ever  before. 

What  would  be  the  consequences  of  the  revolution  if  it  could  be  successful  ? 
The  answer  is  obvious.  At  first,  division  of  this  great  and  hitherto  peaceful 
and  happy  country  into  two  hostile  and  belligerent  republics.  Later,  a 
resolution  of  each  of  those  two  republics  into  an  indefinite  number  of  petty, 
hostile,  and  belligerent  States.  Local  jealousies,  continually  agitated,  would, 
early  or  late,  be  aggravated  by  the  horrors  of  a  servile  war,  filling  the  whole 
country  with  desolation.  The  end  would  be  military  despotism,  compelling 
peace  where  free  government  had  proved  an  absolute  and  irretrievable 
failure. 

The  equilibrium  of  the  nations,  maintained  by  this  republic,  on  the  one 
side,  against  the  European  system  on  the  other  continent,  would  be  lost,  and 
the  struggles  of  nations  in  that  system  for  dominion  in  this  hemisphere  and 
on  the  high  seas,  which  constitutes  the  chief  portion  of  the  world’s  history 
in  the  eighteenth  century,  would  be  renewed.  The  progress  of  freedom  and 
civilization,  now  so  happily  inaugurated,  would  be  arrested,  and  the  hopes 
of  humanity  which  this  the  present  century  has  brought  forth  would  be 
disappointed  and  indefinitely  postponed. 

What  will  be  the  consequences  of  the  failure  of  the  revolution  ?  The  con¬ 
tinuance  of  the  country  in  the  happy  career  that  it  has  pursued  so  auspiciously, 
to  the  repose  of  nations  and  to  the  improvement  of  the  condition  of  mankind. 

What  does  the  President  require  or  expect  from  the  Emperor  of  Russia? 
That  sovereign  is  expected  to  do  just  what  this  government  docs  in  regard 
to  Russia  and  all  other  nations.  It  refrains  from  all  intervention  whatever 
in  their  political  affairs;  and  it  expects  the  same  just  and  generous  forbear- 


CORRESPOXDEXCE. 


281 


ance  in  return.  It  has  too  much  self-respect  to  ask  more,  and  too  high  a 
sense  of  its  rights  to  accept  anything  less. 

The  high  character  of  the  government  of  Russia  warrants  these  moderate 
and  just  expectations. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Cassius  M.  Clay,  Esq.,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr.  Black. 


No.  12.] 


[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

St.  Petersburg ,  December  31,  1860,  ( January  12,  1861.) 


Sir  : 
* 


>1/  ^ 

Here,  as  elsewhere  in  Europe,  the  late  agitations  in  the  United  States,  which 
have  followed  the  election  of  the  republican  candidates  for  President  and  Vice- 
President,  have  been  observed  with  the  deepest  interest.  The  President’s 
message  was  published  in  full  as  soon  as  it  was  received,  together  with  copious 
comments  on  it  from  the  leading  journals  of  England  and  France.  A  weekly 
letter  on  American  affairs  is  also  published  in  the  St.  Petersburg  Journal, 
purporting  to  come  from  New  York,  but  doubtless  made  up  in  London, 
while  on  the  arrival  of  every  steamer  from  the  United  States  the  same 
journal  receives  by  telegraph  its  most  important  items  of  news.  Yesterday, 
for  example,  we  had  news  from  New  York  to  December  28.  Although  the 
intelligence  thus  far,  in  reference  to  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  has  been 
uniformly  bad,  I  think  the  general  belief  here  is  still  favorable  to  some 
amicable  adjustment.  European  statesmen  have  seen  so  many  violent 
agitations  spring  up  and  subside  in  our  country,  that  they  expect  to  see 
this  one  take  the  same  course.  They  cannot  understand,  moreover,  how  a 
great  government  like  ours,  whose  career  has  been  eminently  prosperous, 
can  be  suddenly  destroyed  without  any  apparent  cause,  by  the  very  people 
who  are  themselves  a  part  of  it,  and  who  are  daily  receiving  its  benefits. 
They  have  never  seen  an  American  citizen  abroad  who  did  not  glory  in  the 
American  name,  and  boast,  with  honest  pride,  of  our  popular  institutions. 
They  have  never  seen  an  American  journal  either  where  this  same  spirit 
was  not  manifested  of  satisfaction  with  the  American  Constitution,  and  of 
attachment  to  the  American  form  of  government.  Under  this  government 
they  have  seen  our  country  advance  in  population,  and  territory,  and  wealth, 
and  honor,  as  no  nation  on  earth  was  ever  before  permitted  to  do,  and  this 
progress,  instead  of  exhausting  its  energies,  has  seemed  to  them  to  inspire 
it  with  new  vigor  for  its  future  growth.  They  have  regarded  it,  also,  as 
one  of  the  striking  peculiarities  of  our  republic,  that  while  its  national 
developments  and  national  glory  have  been  thus  marvellously  grand,  they 
represent,  at  the  same  time,  an  amount  of  individual  advancement  and  per¬ 
sonal  happiness  which  can  be  found  nowhere  else  beneath  the  sun.  They 
cannot  persuade  themselves  that  a  government  thus  idolized  apparently  by 
its  citizens,  under  which  these  great  results  have  been  already  worked  out, 
and  under  which  still  greater  results  may  fairly  be  anticipated,  is  really 
about  to  be  destroyed  in  the  midst  of  its  usefulness  and  by  the  hands  of  its 
own  people.  Still  less  can  they  comprehend  the  method  of  peaceable  seces_ 


282 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


sion  by  which  this  destruction  is  sought  to  be  accomplished.  They  have  no 
idea  of  a  government  which  exists  only  at  the  will  of  a  small  minority  of 
its  citizens,  or  of  a  revolution  in  which  weakness  is  permitted  to  triumph 
over  greatly  superior  strength.  They  have  no  sympathy  with  the  idea  of 
State  secession  any  more  than  with  the  system  of  negro  slavery,  and  they 
will  be  slow,  therefore,  to  give  back  their  old  confidence  in  the  United  States, 
even  if  the  present  difficulties  there  should  be  happily  surmounted,  unless, 
indeed,  they  can  understand  at  the  same  time  that  the  right  of  secession, 
which  is  now  so  earnestly  claimed,  has  been  substantially  abandoned  through¬ 
out  the  country,  and  is  not  likely  to  be  again  insisted  on  in  any  practical 
form.  If,  however,  the  existing  difficulties  shall  not  be  surmounted,  and 
under  the  influence  of  this  doctrine  the  Union  shall  be  broken  up,  the  result 
will  be  hailed  undoubtedly  by  the  cabinets  of  Europe  as  a  conclusive  proof 
of  the  instability  of  popular  institutions;  and  the  destruction  of  the  Ameri¬ 
can  government  will  be  a  calamity,  therefore,  not  only  to  those  who  enjoy 
its  benefits  at  home,  but  to  those  oppressed  people  also  in  the  Old  World, 
whose  hearts  are  now  cheered  by  the  knowledge  of  its  existence,  and  whose 
eyes  are  turned  daily  towards  it  for  support  and  consolation.  Yet  those 
governments  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic,  who  have  looked  to  our  republic 
as  the  only  maritime  check  in  the  world  upon  Great  Britain,  will  not  be 
quite  satisfied  to  see  this  counterpoise  disappear,  and  that  haughty  power 
restored  to  its  old  position  of  mistress  of  the  seas. 

The  great  events  which  are  now  in  progress  in  the  United  States  will  con¬ 
tinue  to  be  regarded,  therefore,  with  the  deepest  interest  throughout  Eu¬ 
rope,  until  they  shall  have  reached  their  end.  In  the  meantime  I  cannot 
describe  to  you  the  painful  anxiety  with  which  those  Americans  who  are 
abroad  await  now  the  arrival  of  every  mail  from  home.  Amidst  the  wars 
and  convulsions  of  Europe  we  have  been  accustomed  to  look  towards  the 
great  republic  as  the  assured  and  constant  abode  of  tranquillity  and  happi¬ 
ness,  and  we  have  rejoiced  always  in  the  conviction  that,  by  our  right  of 
citizenship  thpre,  we  possessed  a  title  and  an  honor  which,  making  each 
American  himself  the  equal  of  a  king,  could  receive  no  added  dignity  from 
any  royal  order  or  imperial  decoration.  We  have  all  had  the  happy  conscious¬ 
ness,  moreover,  that  when  our  duties  abroad  should  be  closed  we  had  a 
country  to  return  to,  where  we  should  find  safety  for  our  lives  and  property, 
and  numerous  avenues  wide  open  to  prosperity  and  honor  and  happiness. 
To  see  all  this  crumbling  away  before  our  eyes — our  country  breaking  into 
pieces — our  citizenship  changing  from  a  glory  to  a  shame — our  hopes  in  the 
future  clouded  over  with  doubt — anarchy,  possibly,  taking  the  place  of  good 
government — civil  war  substituted,  perhaps,  for  peace  and  harmony — and 
ruin  threatened  to  every  valuable  interest  which  man  can  cherish.  The  bare 
possibility,  I  say,  of  such  results  as  these,  deeply  painful  as  it  must  be  to 
our  fellow-citizens  at  home,  who  yet  have  the  consolation  of  being  able  to 
struggle  step  by  step  against  them,  is  even  more  painful  to  those  of  us  who 
are  abroad,  and  who  hear  of  events  only  at  fixed  intervals,  without  the  prepa¬ 
ration  of  their  gradual  approach,  and  without  any  power  whatever  to  prevent 
them.  Let  us  hope  even  yet  that  the  God  of  our  fathers  will  not  permit 
their  children  to  be  the  instruments  and  the  victims  of  so  vast  a  calamity, 
but  that  oil  may  yet  be  poured  upon  the  heaving  waters,  and  the  ship  of 
state  may  yet  outride  the  storm.  I  am  one  of  those  who  have  never  believed 
that  it  could  be  possible  to  dissolve  the  American  Union.  I  thought  it  was 
protected  by  too  much  plighted  faith,  by  too  many  sacred  associations  in  the 
past,  by  too  much  admitted  usefulness  in  the  present,  and  by  too  many 
thick  coming  glories  in  the  future,  ever  to  be  seriously  in  danger  of  destruc¬ 
tion.  If  in  this,  however,  I  have  been  mistaken,  and  the  earth  is  really  to 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


283 


be  shadowed  now  by  the  great  calamity,  may  God  have  mercy  upon  those 
misguided  men  by  whose  folly  and  wickedness  it  will  have  been  accom¬ 
plished. 

********* 


I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

Hon.  J.  S.  Black, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


JOHN  APPLETON. 


Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  16.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

St.  Petersburg ,  April  8-20,  1861. 

Sir:  The  despatch  of  the  department  No.  10  and  your  circular  of  March 
9th  have  been  received,  and  I  have  had  several  interviews  with  Prince 
Gortchacow  on  the  subject  of  them.  Although  no  agent  was  here  from  the 
Confederate  States,  and  none  was  immediately  expected,  I  still  thought  it 
only  prudent  that  your  views  in  reference  to  these  States  should  be  known 
by  the  Russian  government,  in  order  that  it  might  be  prepared  for  the  ques¬ 
tion  of  recognition  whenever  it  should  be  presented.  I,  therefore,  handed  to 
Prince  Gortchacow  a  copy  of  President  Lincoln’s  inaugural  address,  and  read 
to  him,  at  the  same  time,  such  portions  of  the  despatches  1  have  mentioned 
as  seemed  to  me  most  important,  particularly  calling  his  attention  to  those 
passages  which  declare  the  unquestioned  legality  of  the  existing  government, 
the  revolutionary  nature  ef  the  movement  which  had  been  made  against  it, 
and  the  full  confidence  of  the  President  that  the  harmony  of  the  Union  would 
be  soon  restored.  In  support  of  these  views  I  added  such  suggestions  of 
my  own  as  I  thought  appropriate,  and  expressed  the  hope  that  our  govern¬ 
ment  might  receive  from  Russia,  at  this  crisis,  a  renewed  manifestation  of 
that  friendly  disposition  which  had  always  marked  the  intercourse  between 
the  United  States  and  that  empire.  Prince  Gortchacow  replied  that  the 
question  of  recognizing  the  Confederate  States  was  not  now  before  the  Em¬ 
peror,  and  for  the  present  he  did  not  think  it  would  be.  I  might  assure  you, 
he  said,  that  his  Majesty  was  not  unmindful  of  the  friendly  relations  which 
had  so  long  subsisted  between  the  two  countries,  and  that  he  sincerely  de¬ 
sired  the  harmony  and  prosperity  of  the  Union.  It  was  the  only  commercial 
counterpoise  in  the  world,  he  added,  to  Great  Britain,  and  Russia  would  do 
nothing,  therefore,  to  diminish  its  just  power  and  influence.  It  was  only 
frank,  however,  to  say,  that  while  things  continued  as  they  were,  the  com¬ 
merce  between  the  Confederate  States  and  Russia  would  not  be  interrupted. 
There  was  no  blockade  of  southern  ports,  and  any  informality  in  the  papers 
of  ships  which  cleared  there  would  be  overlooked.  This,  he  said,  was  the 
course  determined  on  by  England  and  France,  and  he  understood  it  was  pur¬ 
sued  also  by  our  own  government.  I  told  him  I  had  no  specific  instructions 
on  this  point,  and  did  not  know  what  rule  had  been  adopted  concerning  it 
by  other  nations.  It  seemed  to  me,  however,  that  American  ships  ought  to 
carry  the  American  flag  and  be  provided  with  American  papers;  and  if  this 
was  not  done  or,  still  more,  if  the  American  character  was  repudiated,  I 
hardly  saw  how  they  could  be  recognized  as  American  ships.  He  said  there 
were  some  difficulties  certainly  in  the  way,  but  it  was  better  to  overlook  them, 
and  to  receive  the  ships  for  just  what  they  were, -vessels  belonging  to  the 


284 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


United  States,  but  not  provided,  in  consequence  of  existing  troubles,  with  the 
usual  evidence  of  nationality.  I  said,  they  might  deny  that  they  belonged 
to  the  United  States. 

He  replied  that  this  would  not  alter  the  fact.  They  came  from  ports  in 
the  United  States,  and  the  separation  of  the  Confederate  States  was  not  yet 
recognized.  The  policy,  he  said,  involved  no  recognition  of  nationality,  but 
was  only  a  concession  in  aid  of  commerce.  I  replied  that  my  only  interest 
was  to  prevent  this  recognition.  We  desired  to  be  permitted  to  work  out 
the  pending  questions  in  the  Uni  311  in  our  own  way,  and,  in  our  endeavors 
to  restore  its  unity  and  harmony,  we  thought  we  had  a  right  to  rely  upon 
the  friendly  aid  and  co-operation  of  other  nations.  He  said  no  nation  would 
witness  the  restoration  with  more  satisfaction  than  Russia. 

This  is  the  substance  of  our  conversations,  and  I  need  hardly  trouble  you 
with  any  comments.  It  is  obvious  that  Russia  does  not  expect  to  be  called 
upon  to  decide  the  question  of  recognition  until  this  decision  has  been  made 
by  England  and  France,  and  that  she  expects  to  find  it  then  of  easy  solution. 
In  the  meantime  she  expresses  the  hope,  which  I  am  inclined  to  think  she 
really  entertains,  that  our  difficulties  may  be  amicably  adjusted  and  the 
Union  restored  to  its  old  harmony  and  power.  In  the  commercial  policy 
which  she  has  adopted  towards  southern  ports  she  has  evidently  followed 
the  example  of  Great  Britain  and  France.  I  ought  to  add  that  Prince 
Gortchakoff  read  to  me  extracts  from  several  letters  of  Mr.  Stoekl,  the 
Russian  minister  at  Washington,  which  indicated  that  the  representatives 
of  the  three  powers  there  were  quite  agreed  upon  this  subject.  Under 
these  circumstances,  after  stating  such  objections  to  the  policy  as  occurred 
to  me,  I  contented  myself  with  the  assurance  of  Prince  Gortchakow  that  it 
was  not  intended  to  involve  any  recognition  of  nationality. 

I  shall  take  care  to  inform  you  promptly  of  an}7-  attempts  which  may  be 
made  here  “to  embarrass  or  overthrow  the  republic,”  and  you  may  rely 
also  upon  my  best  efforts  to  prevent  and  counteract  them. 

<i/  ^  >*/  ^  ^  \i/ 

v  ^  *1^  *7^ 


I  am,  very  respectfully,  yours, 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


JOHN  APPLETON. 


Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract .] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

St.  Petersburg ,  May  11,  (23,)  1861. 

Sir:  The  circular  of  the  department  dated  April  20,  1861,  indorsing  the 
President’s  proclamation  on  the  subject  of  blockades  and  privateering,  has 
been  received.  I  have  written  to  our  consuls  at  the  different  ports  of 
Russia,  calling  their  special  attention  to  the  subject,  and  enjoining  upon 
them  the  utmost  vigilance  to  prevent  the  fitting  out  of  privateers  within 
their  respective  consulates.  At  Sebastopol,  where  we  have  no  consul,  I 
have  written  to  Colonel  Gowen,  an  American  citizen,  to  the  same  effect,  and 
have  asked  him  to  transmit  to  this  legation  any  information  which  may 
come  to  his  knowledge  on  this  subject,  concerning  either  ships  or  persons. 

I  have  also  received  the  circular  of  the  department'  dated  April  2T,  trans¬ 
mitting,  for  my  information,  a  copy  of  the  President’s  proclamation  of  that 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


285 


date  directing  a  blockade  of  the  ports  of  Virginia  and  North  Carolina,  in 
addition  to  that  of  the  ports  of  the  States  mentioned  in  the  proclamation  of 
the  19th  instant. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c., 

JOHN  APPLETON. 

Hon.  Wm.  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  C.  M.  Clay. 

No.  4.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  21,  1861. 

Sir  :  We  have  received  Mr.  Appleton’s  despatch  of  the  8th  of  April,  (No. 
16.)  The  manner  in  which  Prince  Gortchakoff  has  expressed  himself  on  the 
subject  of  the  domestic  disturbances  in  our  country,  and  the  anticipated 
application  of  the  insurgents  for  a  recognition  of  their  assumed  authority, 
is  in  harmony  with  the  friendly  spirit  which  Russia  has  always  manifested 
towards  the  United  States,  and  in  the  main  is  quite  satisfactory.  We 
might,  indeed,  have  felt  ourselves  bound  to  except  to  the  claim  that  while 
matters  should  remain  as  they  were  assumed  to  be  when  this  conversation 
was  held,  irregularities  in  the  observance  of  our  revenue  laws  practiced  by 
foreign  nations  would  be  expected  to  be  overlooked  by  this  government; 
but  that  question  has  passed  by.  We  have  put  our  land  and  naval  forces 
in  motion  to  suppress  the  insurrection,  and  have  closed  the  ports  which 
have  been  seized  by  the  revolutionists  by  a  blockade.  You  may,  if  occasion 
shall  offer,  assure  the  Russian  government  that  we  expect  that  the  unhappy 
disturbance  will  not  continue  long,  and  that  peace  and  harmony  will  return, 
and  the  Union  be  stronger  and  firmer  than  ever  before. 

Mr.  Appleton’s  judicious  and  energetic  conduct  in  this  connexion  is  ap¬ 
proved  and  appreciated  by  the  President. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM.  II.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Appleton  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract  ] 

No.  18.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

St.  Petersburg ,  May  22,  ( June  3,)  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  copies,  which  I  have  received  unofficially, 
of  two  orders  of  the  Russian  government  which  have  been  recently  issued 
for  the  guidance  of  its  officers  in  respect  to  the  flags  and  ships  of  the  Con¬ 
federate  States.  It  will  be  seen  that  they  conform  to  what  was  said  to  me 
on  this  subject  by  Prince  Gortchakoff  in  the  conversation  which  I  reported 
to  the  department  in  my  No.  16.  I  ought  to  add  that  every  American  ship 
which  has  yet  appeared  at  Cronstadt  has  shown  the  American  flag  and 
claimed  the  American  character.  In  one  case  from  a  southern  port  the 
papers  were  not  quite  regular,  but  the  irregularity  was  overlooked. 


*  *  *  * 

*  *  *  * 

I  am,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

lion.  William  IT.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


* 

* 


* 

* 


JOHN  APPLETON. 


286 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


To  fhe  commander-in-cliief  of  the  port  of  Cronstadt: 

His  imperial  highness  the  general  admiral,  foreseeing  the  possibility  of 
ships  belonging  to  the  southern  States  of  the  American  Union,  which  have 
seceded  from  the  United  States  of  North  America,  arriving  at  our  ports 
during  the  present  navigation,  has  directed  me  to  inform  your  excellency,  for 
your  guidance,  that,  according  to  the  opinion  of  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  the  flag  of  men-of-war  belonging  to  the  seceded  States  must  not  be 
saluted. 

That  there  maj^  be  no  obstacle  in  the  way  of  commerce,  merchant  vessels 
of  the  seceded  States  are  to  be  treated  according  to  the  rules  acted  on  by 
us  with  regard  to  Italian  merchant  vessels  sailing  under  the  Italian  flag; 
i.  e.,  according  to  the  treaties  that  are  at  present  in  force,  (commercial 
treaty  concluded  between  America  and  us  December  (6,)  10,  1832.)  Should 
the  crews  of  vessels  belonging  to  the  seceded  States  not  wish  to  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  authority  of  the  consuls  appointed  by  the  federal  government  of 
Washington,  then,  in  case  of  dispute,  they  must  abide  by  the  decision  of 
our  local  authorities,  in  the  same  manner  as  foreigners  whose  governments 
have  no  representatives  in  our  empire. 

General  Major  GREIG, 

Director  of  the  Chancellery  of  the  Ministry  of  Marine. 


Circular  addressed  to  the  custom-houses  on  the  White,  Baltic,  Black,  and 

Azojf  seas. 

By  order  of  the  minister  of  finance,  the  department  of  foreign  trade  pre 
scribes:  In  case  any  merchant  vessels  arrive  in  our  ports  belonging  to  the 
southern  States  of  the  American  Union,  the  same  not  acknowledging  the 
authority  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  of  America,  the  said  ves¬ 
sels  are  to  be  treated  and  received  as  hitherto,  according  to  the  treaty  ot 
1832,  should  even  their  ships’  papers  not  be  in  order,  which  may  occur  in 
consequence  of  the  present  political  condition  of  the  United  States  ol 
America. 

General  Lieutenant  PASHKOFF, 

Director  of  the  Department  of  Foreign  Trade. 

SORNIN,  Chief  of  Section,  &c. 


Mr.  Clay  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

St.  Petersburg,  Russia,  June  7,  1861. 

cq^.  ********* 

I  find  here  your  letters  Nos.  1,  2,  and  3.  No.  1,  giving  me  informati<  n 
which,  if  sooner  received,  would  have  avoided  the  necessity  of  my  remarks 
in  my  last  letter  personal  to  myself,  as  I  there  find  myself  advised  of  n  y 
right  to  receive  salary  from  the  time  of  my  leaving  home  to  my  arrival  heie 
I  need  only  add  that  the  documents  referred  to  in  No.  1  are  also  received,  as 
well  as  your  circular  of  the  6th  May,  (printed,)  all  of  which  shall  receive  my 
earliest  attention. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


287 


I  found  the  Emperor  absent  in  the  direction  of  Moscow;  and  being  intro¬ 
duced  by  our  minister,  Mr.  Appleton,  to  the  assistant  secretary  of  state, 
General  Tolstoy,  (the  premier,  Gortchakoff,  now  being  also  absent,)  I  was 
advised  by  him  to  await  the  return  of  the  Emperor;  and  I  presumed  it  would 
not  be  agreeable  to  the  Emperor  for  me  to  follow  on,  so  I  shall  await  his  re¬ 
turn  to  this  city.  I  may  add  that  the  secretary  gave  me  a  very  cordial 
meeting,  speaking  partly  in  English  and  partly  in  French;  assured  me  of  the 
continued  feeling  of  friendship  on  the  part  of  Russia  for  the  Union,  and  his 
hope  that  the  Confederate  States  would  not  venture  an  embassy  here.  In  a  word, 
I  venture  to  say  that  the  French  and  Russian  Emperors  are  friendly  to  our 
Union. 

O/  O/  vO  >1/  O/ 

/j»  /K  ^  ^ 


I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  &c. 


C.  M.  CLAY 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay. 
[Extract  ] 


No.  8.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  8,  dated  June  7,  was  duly  received,  and  the  in¬ 
telligence  of  your  safe  arrival  at  your  destination  afforded  us  much  satisfac¬ 
tion. 

So  also  the  President  is  highly  gratified  with  the  liberal  and  friendly  sen¬ 
timents  concerning  our  domestic  affairs,  expressed  to  you  by  Prince  Gort¬ 
chakoff. 

I  transmit  for  your  confidential  perusal  a  copy  of  my  last  despatch  to  Mr. 
Dayton,  on  the  subject  of  our  proposition  to  accede  to  the  declaration  of  the 
congress  of  Paris.  The  views  it  presents  will  be  the  guide  to  your  own 
action  on  that  subject. 


^  ^ 

^  ^  ^ 

I  am,  sir,  &c. 

C.  M.  Clay,  Esq.,  &c.t  &c.,  &c. 


*  *  *  * 
WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Clay  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extracts.] 


No.  4.] 

Sir  : 
* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


St.  Petersburg,  Bussia,  June  21,  1861. 

*  *  *  *  sfc 

*  *  *  *  * 

>K  * 


The  Emperor  returned  from  Moscow  a  few  days  ago,  where,  it  is  said,  lie 
was  engaged  in  suppressing  the  insurrections  of  the  serfs.  By  persuasion 
and  arms,  as  the  enemies  of  the  liberation,  the  proprietors  themselves,  or 
their  agents,  were  making  them  believe  that  they  were  at  once  freed  from 


288 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


all  claims  of  work,  &c.,  and  this  was  done,  no  doubt,  to  prejudice  the  great 
work  of  the  Emperor.  But  it  seems  that  everywhere  the  disaffection  has 
been  subdued,  and  very  strong  demonstrations  of  respect  have  been,  here 
and  at  Moscow,  by  the  peasants  towards  the  Emperor,  warmly  exhibited. 

On  the  16th  (28th)  instant  I  called  upon,  by  agreement,  Prince  Alexander 
Gortchakoff  III,  minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  his  Majesty  the  Emperor.  He 
received  me  in  a  cordial  way,  shaking  hands,  and  causing  me  to  be  seated. 
He  led  the  conversation  by  saying  the  Emperor  having  been  advised  of  my 
arrival,  had  ordered  him  to  express  his  continued  friendship  for  the  United 
States  government ;  that  he  had  heard  with  regret  of  our  civil  troubles,  and 
hoped  the  Union  a  speedy  triumph.  I  responded  that  no  change  of  admin¬ 
istration  had  changed  the  relations  of  the  United  States  and  Russia,  whose 
natural  position  and  traditionary  friendship  must  ever  keep  them  in  the 
closest  harmony,  and  that  I  was  ordered  by  the  President  thus  to  express 
myself  to  his  Imperial  Majesty  ;  that  I  was  ordered  also  to  explain  at  the 
proper  time  the  causes  of  our  difficulties  at  home  ;  that  at  present  I  would 
only  say  that  the  rebel  slaveholders  made  war  upon  us  because,  following 
in  the  wake  of  advancing  civilization,  we  would  not  allow  our  government 
to  be  longer  the  propagandist  of  slavery.  I  stated  how  the  slave  States 
were  divided,  and  my  hope  that  the  rebellion  would  be  soon  crushed  out. 
To  this  he  attentively  listened,  and  responded  that  he  hoped  it  would  be 
most  “  speedily  done.” 

Upon  my  giving  him  my  office  copy  of  the  letter  of  credence,  he  said  he 
would  see  the  Emperor,  and  let  me  know  at  my  hotel  when  I  would  be  re¬ 
ceived  by  his  Majesty.  He  also  asked  after  Pickens,  my  family,  and  other 
things  in  a  familiar  way,  when  I  was  dismissed  by  again  shaking  hands.  I 
have  given  the  substance  of  the  interview,  and  the  words  as  near  as  may 
be,  in  order  that  you  may  for  yourself  draw  your  own  conclusions.  * 

^  St*  vL#  »*/ 

/N  ^  ^  ^  ^ 

O/  O/  vL  xL*  Oy 

^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^ 

Oy  \*y  \|y  xjy  v*y  vL. 

^  ^ 

According  to  the  rule  here,  I  da}7  before  yesterday  called  upon  M.  de  Tche- 
testcheff,  master  of  ceremonies.  My  visit  was  yesterday  returned,  and  I  now 
await  further  orders  from  the  Emperor  as  to  the  presentation,  of  the  which 
I  will  write  you  the  particulars  before  sending  you  this.  *  * 

\Jy  ^  xiy  xly 

yyx 

5|C  ^  *  Jfc  5k 

xl»  v*y  vLy  xL#  xL*  \Jy  xL» 

^  »p 

Prince  Gortchakoff  having  returned  my  visit,  gave  me  notice  that  the 
Emperor  would  receive  me  on  Sunday,  at  twelve  o’clock,  the  2d  (14th)  July, 
at  Peterhoff.  So  on  to-day  (14th  July)  I  and  my  suite,  Green  Clay,  William 
C.  Goodloe,  and  T.  Williams,  private  secretaries,  set  out  at  ten  a.  m.  for  Pe¬ 
terhoff  by  rail,  the  “  geraut”  of  ceremonies  meeting  us  at  the  station  here, 
and  three  of  the  Emperor’s  carriages  meeting  us  at  the  depot  and  taking  us 
to  the  palace.  We  then  witnessed  a  review  of  cavalry  and  infantry  by  the 
Emperor,  and  after  it  was  over,  at  a  little  after  one  o’clock,  we  were  sent  for 
by  the  Emperor,  and,  as  my  secretary  was  told  by  the  “  master  of  ceremo¬ 
nies,”  who  is  the  regular  introducer,  I  was  conducted  into  the  presence  by 
Prince  Gortchakoff,  who,  though  the  Emperor  spoke  (English  ?)  American 
mostly,  acted  as  interpreter  as  to  the  set  speech,  which  was  in  Russian. 

The  Emperor  received  me  standing,  advancing  and  saying  he  was  pleased 
to  see  me.  I  then  went  through,  very  briefly,  the  usual  forms  of  such 
speeches,  adding,  that  I  ventured,  by  the  orders  of  my  government,  to  say 
further  to  him  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  and  the  American 
people  looked  with  profound  sympathy  and  admiration  upen  the  great  re- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


289 


forms  which  he  was  attempting  in  his  empire,  which,  without  considering 
the  philanthropic  view  of  the  movement,  by  building  up  a  middle  class,  he 
would  add  more  to  the  physical  power  of  his  country  than  did  Peter  the 
Great  by  consolidation  and  extension;  and  that  the  success  of  his  enterprise 
would,  in  the  estimation  of  the  western  nations,  place  him  even  above  that 
great  ruler. 

The  Emperor  seemed  much  gratified  and  really  moved  by  this  last  remark, 
which  he  saw  was  from  us  a  real  appreciation  of  his  great  undertaking,  and 
not  an  unmeaning  compliment.  He  then  said  he  would  respond  through 
the  prince;  and,  turning  to  him,  he  spoke  with  very  decided  earnestness. 

In  response  to  the  first  part  of  my  address,  he  repeated  the  usual  words. 

To  the  last  he  said,  in  conclusion,  that  “  so  much  the  more  had  he  hopes  of 
the  perpetuity  of  the  friendship  between  the  two  nations  now,  that  in  addi¬ 
tion  to  all  former  ties  we  were  bound  together  by  a  common  sympathy  in 
the  common  cause  of  emancipation.”  I  give  nearly  the  exact  words.  Among 
other  things  he  expressed  a  very  earnest  wish  that  we  would  speedily 
recover  the  integrity  of  the  Union.  The  more  formal  speech  was  done 

through  the  prince;  the  rest  was  spoken  to  me  directly  in  English.  He 

asked  me  what  late  advices  I  had;  and  when  I  told  him  how  many  of  the 
border  slave  States  were  standing  by  the  Union,  he  expressed  great  satis¬ 
faction.  He  wanted  to  know  if  I  thought  England  would  interfere.  I  told 
him  we  did  not  care  what  she  did;  that  her  interference  would  tend  to  unite 
us  the  more;  that  we  fought  the  south  with  reluctance;  we  were  much 
intermarried,  and  of  a  common  history;  but  that  the  course  of  England  had 
aroused  our  sensibilities  towards  her  in  no  very  pleasant  manner.  The 
Emperor  seemed  to  like  my  seeming  defiance  of  old  “John  Bull”  very  much. 
He  wanted  to  know  if  I  was  a  relative  of  Henry  Clay,  and  what  was  my 
military  rank.  I  told  him  I  was  only  a  distant  relation  of  Clay,  and  that  I 
wore  the  uniform  of  an  American  colonel,  which  rank  I  had  filled  in  my 
own  country.  The  Emperor  then  wished  that  our  personal  relations  would 
advance  the  national  friendship,  as  our  former  ministers  had  so  succeeded; 
inquired  after  Mr.  Appleton’s  health;  regretted  that  he  had  not  seen  him 
before  his  departure;  shook  hands  with  me;  when  I  accompanied  him  into 
the  ante-chamber,  and  introduced  to  him  my  three  attaches,  to  whom  ho 
made  pleasant  remarks,  when,  shaking  hands  once  more,  he  dismissed  us. 

vj/  'if 

'T'  'T'  'T'  'T'1  'T*  'T*  'T* 

I  have  already  made  this  letter  too  long;  but  I  cannot  conclude  without 
saying  how  much  more  and  more  I  value  the  great  and  inestimable  bless¬ 
ings  of  our  government,  and  how  I  trust  in  God  that  no  compromise  will 
be  made  of  the  great  idea  for  which  we  have  so  long  fought,  but  that 
General  Scott,  following  out  the  programme  of  Mr.  Lincoln’s  inaugural,  will 
slowly  and  surely  subdue  the  rebellion,  “  stock,  lock,  and  gun-barrel,” 
“hook  and  line,  bob  and  sinker,”  and  that  we  may  be  all  spared  to  see  once 
more  that  glorious  old  banner  restored.  “Liberty  and  union,  now  and  for 
ever — one  and  inseparable.” 

I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  most  obedient  servant, 

C  M  CLAY. 

Hon.  W.  II.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State ,  &c .,  Washington,  D.  O’. 


290 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay. 

No.  9.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  9,  1861. 

Sir:  Mr.  Appleton's  despatch  of  May  22,  (June  3,)  No.  18,  has  been  re¬ 
ceived. 

It  contains  the  orders  in  admiralty  on  the  subject  of  the  treatment  of 
American  vessels  during  the  present  condition  of  our  internal  affairs. 

The  subject  seems  to  call  for  no  special  instruction  to  you,  except  to 
express  to  the  Russian  government  the  satisfaction  which  this  government 
feels  in  regard  to  the  conduct  and  friendly  action  of  the  Emperor. 

Mr.  Appleton  is  now  with  us,  and  we  are  deriving  much  profit  from  the 
information  he  gives.  We  learn  your  high  appreciation  of  his  conduct  in 
his  mission  with  pleasure. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Cassius  M.  Clay,  Esq.,  dcc.}  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Clay  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  5.]  St.  Petersburg,  August  3,  1861. 

Sir:  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

A  few  days  since  I  laid  before  Prince  Gortchakoff  the  declaration  of  the 
seven  powers  at  Paris,  April  16, 1856,  as  you  had  prepared  it.  He  expressed 
himself  favorably  inclined  towards  allowing  us  to  become  a  party,  saying 
that  Russia  had,  in  a  friendly  spirit,  in  1856,  asked  that  America  and  the 
parties  not  acceding  should  be  exempt  from  its  force;  for  he  desired  to  see 
the  United  States  flourish  as  a  naval  power;  *  *  * 

that  he  would  take  the  scheme  under  consideration,  and  advise  me  of  the  Em¬ 
peror’s  conclusion.  I  laid  before  him  also  an  additional  clause,  embracing 
Secretary  Marcy’s  proposition:  “Private  goods  of  citizens  or  subjects  of 
neutrals,  and  of  belligerents,  at  sea,  not  contraband  of  war,  shall  not  be 
liable  to  capture.”  Of  this  also  he  spoke  favorably,  but  said,  as  we  could 
not  enforce  it  without  the  accession  of  the  great  powers,  it  should  be  referred 
to  them.  I  said  that  there  must  be  a  beginning,  and  that  I  hoped  the  Em¬ 
peror  would  both  accept  it  and  urge  it  upon  the  maritime  powers.  Should 
this  advance  be  made,  (and  why  not?)  it  would,  most  of  all,  benefit  the 
United  States;  whilst,  in  agreeing  simply  to  the  Paris  declaration,  we  are 
most  of  all  injured. 

^  vL*  *1* 

/J'  *7^ 

Your  copy  of  despatch  (No.  27)  to  Mr.  Dayton  you  will  see  has  just  been 
exactly  anticipated  by  me.  I  put  the  Paris  declaration,  “  pure  and  simple,” 
for  immediate  adoption,  and  reserved  the  Marcy  addendum  for  future  con¬ 
sideration.  No  doubt  it  will  be  ultimately  adopted;  for  all  the  nations  except 
France,  England,  and  the  United  States,  would  no  doubt  be  glad  to  have 
the  commerce  of  the  seas  free  from  the  perils  of  the  war  navies  of  these 
great  powers. 

****** 

****** 

I  am,  very  truly,  your  obedient  servant, 

C.  M.  CLAY. 

lion.  W.  H.  Seward. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


291 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay. 

No.  12.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  12,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  21st  of  June  (No.  4)  has  been  received.  The 
account  which  it  gives  us  of  your  reception  by  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  and 
of  the  just  purposes  and  friendly  wishes  expressed  by  him  in  relation  to  the 
United  States,  is  eminently  satisfactory.  I  sincerely  hope  that  the  good 
understanding  which  now  exists  between  the  two  governments  may  con¬ 
tinue.  I  am  sure  you  need  no  new  instructions  to  enable  you  to  say  that 
we  rejoice  in  the  peaceful  progress  of  the  means  which  the  Emperor  has 
initiated  for  meliorating  the  condition  of  the  people  of  Russia. 

Your  suggestions  concerning  certain  modern  improvements  of  rifled 
cannon  have  been  commended  to  the  consideration  of  the  Secretary  of  War. 

We  wait  with  interest  upon  your  negotiation  on  the  subject  of  the  rights 
of  neutrals  in  maritime  war,  which  your  despatch  leads  us  to  suppose  you 
will  already  have  commenced  before  this  communication  shall  have  reached 
St.  Petersburg. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Cassius  M.  Clay,  &c.,  &c.t  &c 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Clay. 

No.  13.]  Department  of  State. 

Washington,  September  3,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  3d  of  August  (No.  5)  has  been  received. 

I  have  been  quite  well  aware  that  our  relations  to  Great  Britain  and 
France,  in  this  crisis  of  our  domestic  difficulties,  are  attended  by  complica¬ 
tions  and  dangers  which  altogether  surpass  any  that  we  can  have  to  en¬ 
counter  in  our  intercourse  with  Russia  and  other  northern  European  powers. 
We  hope  and  expect  to  be  always  in  relations  of  amity  and  real  friendship 
with  those  powers,  and  are  very  willing  to  negotiate  with  them,  and  espe¬ 
cially  with  Russia,  upon  the  basis  of  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of 
Paris,  either  with  or  without  the  Marcy  amendment,  though  greatly  prefer¬ 
ring  that  that  amendment  shall  be  incorporated  into  the  treaty. 

At  the  same  time,  it  is  well  that  you  should  know  that  thus  far  the  propo¬ 
sitions  for  similar  treaties  with  Great  Britain  and  France  have  not  yet  been 
acceded  to  by  those  governments.  If  the  imperial  government,  for  any 
reason,  prefer  to  delay  acting  upon  the  subject  until  the  decisive  results  of 
our  negotiations  with  the  two  other  powers  named,  we  shall  not  expect  you 
to  be  urgent  upon  the  subject.  We  simply  desire  to  act  justly  and  candidly 
with  all  other  nations,  so  as  to  give  them  all  reasonable  guarantees  for  the 
security  of  commerce  during  the  continuance  of  our  civil  war.  This  done, 
we  can  cheerfully  abide  the  coming  of  events,  never  doubting  for  a  moment 
the  complete  restoration  of  the  authority  and  high  prestige  of  the  federal 
Union. 

Your  remarks  upon  the  subject  of  Mexico  are  very  interesting,  and  they 
will  have  due  weight  in  forming  any  determination  which  the  rapid  course 
of  political  events  there  shall  require  us  to  adopt. 

I  wish  that  it  were  compatible  with  my  many  cares  at  this  critical  moment 
to  impart  to  each  of  our  ministers  abroad  a  full  knowledge  of  the  condition  of 


292 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


our  negotiations  and  discussions  with  all  foreign  powers.  If  I  could  do  so, 
you  would  probably  be  satisfied  that  you  are  laboring  under  apprehensions 
of  some  imaginary  foreign  dangers.  But  such  a  proceeding  is  absolutely 
impossible,  and  I  must  be  content  to  advise  you,  when  necessary,  of  the 
President’s  wishes  in  regard  to  your  own  mission,  and  leave  you,  as  to  the 
rest,  to  await  ultimate,  and  yet  seasonable,  developments. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Cassius  M.  Clay,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Prince  Gortcho.koff  to  Mr.  Be  Stoeckl. 
[Translation.] 


St.  Petersburg,  July  10,  1861. 

Sir:  From  the  beginning  of  the  conflict  which  divides  the  United  States 
of  America  you  have  been  desired  to  make  known  to  the  federal  government 
the  deep  interest  with  which  our  august  master  was  observing  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  a  crisis  which  puts  in  question  the  prosperity  and  even  the  exist¬ 
ence  of  the  Union. 

The  Emperor  profoundly  regrets  to  see  that  the  hope  of  a  peaceful  solution 
is  not  realized,  and  that  American  citizens,  already  in  arms  against  each 
other,  are  ready  to  let  loose  upon  their  country  the  most  formidable  of  the 
scourges  of  political  societ}7 — a  civil  war. 

For  the  more  than  eighty  years  that  it  has  existed  the  American  Union 
owes  its  independence,  its  towering  rise,  and  its  progress  to  the  concord  of 
its  members,  consecrated,  under  the  auspices  of  its  illustrious  founder,  by 
institutions  which  have  been  able  to  reconcile  union  with  liberty.  This 
union  has  been  fruitful.  It  has  exhibited  to  the  world  the  spectacle  of  a 
prosperity  without  example  in  the  annals  of  history. 

It  would  be  deplorable  that,  after  so  conclusive  an  experience,  the  United 
States  should  be  hurried  into  a  breach  of  the  solemn  compact  which,  up  to 
this  time,  has  made  their  power 

In  spite  of  the  diversity  of  their  constitutions  and  of  their  interests,  and 
perhaps,  even,  because  of  this  diversity,  Providence  seems  to  urge  them  to 
draw  closer  the  traditional  bond  which  is  the  basis  and  the  very  condition 
of  their  political  existence.  In  any  event,  the  sacrifices  which  they  might 
impose  upon  themselves  to  maintain  it  are  beyond  comparison  with  those 
which  dissolution  would  bring  after  it.  United,  they  perfect  themselves; 
isolated,  they  are  paralyzed. 

The  struggle  which  unhappily  has  just  arisen  can  neither  be  indefinitely 
prolonged  nor  lead  to  the  total  destruction  of  one  of  the  parties.  Sooner  or 
later  it  will  be  necessary  to  come  to  some  settlement,  whatsoever  it  may  be, 
which  may  cause  the  divergent  interests  now  actually  in  conflict  to  coexist. 

The  American  nation  would  then  give  a  proof  of  high  political  wisdom 
in  seeking  in  common  such  a  settlement  before  a  useless  effusion  of  blood,  a 
barren  squandering  of  strength  and  of  public  riches,  and  acts  of  violence 
and  reciprocal  reprisals  shall  have  come  to  deepen  an  abyss  between  the 
two  parties  to  the  confederation,  to  end  definitively  in  their  mutual  ex¬ 
haustion,  and  in  the  ruin,  perhaps  irreparable,  of  their  commercial  and 
political  power. 

Our  august  master  cannot  resign  himself  to  admit  such  deplorable  antici¬ 
pations.  His  Imperial  Majesty  still  places  his  confidence  in  that  practical 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


293 


good  sense  of  the  citizens  of  the  Union  who  appreciate  so  judiciously  their 
true  interests.  His  Majesty  is  happy  to  believe  that  the  members  of  the 
federal  government  and  the  influential  men  of  the  two  parties  will  seize  ail 
occasions  and  will  unite  all  their  efforts  to  calm  the  effervescence  of  the 
passions.  There  are  no  interests  so  divergent  that  it  may  not  be  possible 
to  reconcile  them  by  laboring  to  that  end  with  zeal  and  perseverance  in  a 
spirit  of  justice  and  moderation. 

If,  within  the  limits  of  your  friendly  relations,  your  language  and  your 
councils  may  contribute  to  this  result,  you  will  respond,  sir,  to  the  intentions 
of  his  Majesty  the  Emperor  in  devoting  to  this  the  personal  influence  which 
you  may  have  been  able  to  acquire  during  your  long  residence  at  Washing¬ 
ton,  and  the  consjderation  which  belongs  to  your  character  as  the  repre¬ 
sentative  of  a  sovereign  animated  by  the  most  friendly  sentiments  towards 
the  American  Union.  This  Union  is  not  simply,  in  our  eyes,  an  element  essen¬ 
tial  to  the  universal  political  equilibrium.  It  constitutes,  besides,  a  nation 
to  which  our  august  master  and  all  Russia  have  pledged  the  most  friendly 
interest;  for  the  two  countries,  placed  at  the  extremities  of  the  two  worlds, 
both  in  the  ascending  period  of  their  development,  appear  called  to  a  natural 
community  of  interests  and  of  sympathies,  of  which  they  have  already  given 
mutual  proofs  to  each  other. 

I  do  not  wish  here  to  approach  any  of  the  questions  which  divide  the 
United  States.  We  are  not  called  upon  to  express  ourselves  in  this  contest. 
The  preceding  considerations  have  no  other  object  than  to  attest  the  lively 
solicitude  of  the  Emperor  in  presence  of  the  dangers  which  menace  the 
American  Union,  and  the  sincere  wishes  which  his  Majesty  entertains  for  the 
maintenance  of  that  great  work,  so  laboriously  raised,  which  appeared  so 
rich  in  its  future. 

It  is  in  this  sense,  sir,  that  I  desire  you  to  express  yourself,  as  well  to  the 
members  of  the  general  government  as  to  influential  persons  whom  you  may 
meet,  giving  them  the  assurance  that  in  every  event  the  American  nation 
may  count  upon  the  most  cordial  sympathy  on  the  part  of  our  august  master 
during  the  important  crisis  which  it  is  passing  through  at  present. 

Receive,  sir,  the  expression  of  my  very  distinguished  consideration. 

G  0  RTC  H  AK  OFF. 

Mr.  De  Stoeckl,  &c.t  &c.}  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  De  Stoeckl. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington ,  September  7,  1861. 

The  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  is  authorized  by  the  President 
to  express  to  Mr.  De  Stoeckl,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipo¬ 
tentiary  of  his  Majesty  the  Emperor  of  Russia,  his  profound  sense  of  the 
liberal,  friendly,  and  magnanimous  sentiments  of  his  Majesty  on  the  subject 
of  the  internal  differences  which  for  a  time  have  seemed  to  threaten  the 
American  Union,  as  they  are  communicated  in  the  instruction  from  Prince 
Gortchacow,  and  by  him  read,  by  his  Majesty’s  direction,  to  the  President 
of  the  United  States  and  Secretary  of  State.  Mr.  De  Stoeckl  will  express 
to  his  government  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  President  regards  this 
new  guarantee  of  a  friendship  between  the  two  countries,  which  had  its 
beginning  with  the  national  existence  of  the  l  nited  States. 

The  Secretary  of  State  offers  to  Mr.  De  Stoeckl  renewed  assurances  of  his 
high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

Mr.  Edward  de  Stoeckl,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


DENMARK. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood. 

[Extract.] 

No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  1,  1861. 

Sir:  The  one  subject  in  all  our  foreign  relations  which  most  anxiously 
engages  the  President’s  attention  is  the  possible  action  of  other  nations  in 
regard  to  the  domestic  controversy  which  is  raging  within  our  own  borders. 

Parties  long  ago  found  it  their  apparent  interest  to  appeal  to  local  interests 
and  prejudices,  and  they  have  perse vered  in  that  policy  so  far  and  with  such 
effect  that  masses  large  enough  to  control  the  action  of  the  State  authorities 
have  at  last  come  to  prefer  disorganization  and  disunion,  rather  than  to  ac¬ 
quiesce  in  the  will  of  the  majority  expressed  in  conformity  with  the  provi¬ 
sions  of  the  organic  law. 

To  a  well-balanced  mind  it  seems  very  strange  that  a  citizen,  ever  without 
the  excuse  of  intolerable  oppression,  passes  the  first  stage  of  sedition,  for 
it  is  at  that  very  stage  that  the  malcontent  finds  himself  obliged  to  seek  aid 
from  aliens  to  defeat  the  equal  laws  and  overthrow  the  beneficent  institu¬ 
tions  of  his  own  country.  Sedition  in  the  United  States  is  not  merely 
unreasonable,  it  is  altogether  absurd.  Human  ingenuity  has  never  yet  de¬ 
vised,  nor  can  it  devise,  a  form  of  government  in  which  the  individual  citizen 
can  retain  so  large  a  portion  of  the  natural  rights  of  man,  and  at  the  same 
time  receive  so  ample  a  protection  against  the  dangers  which  so  often 
threaten  the  safety  and  even  the  existence  of  nations.  Nevertheless,  an  in¬ 
surrection  has  broken  out  here;  a  pretended  government  has  been  constituted 
under  the  name  of  the  Confederate  States  of  America,  and  that  government 
now  has  its  agents  abroad  seeking  to  obtain  a  recognition  of  its  sovereignty 
and  independence. 

It  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  these  agents  will  visit  the  capital  of  Den¬ 
mark.  They  will  seek  the  favor  of  powers  supposed  to  be  more  capricious 
or  more  ambitious.  Nevertheless  political  action  even  of  the  more  command¬ 
ing  or  more  active  States  is  influenced  by  a  general  opinion  that  is  formed 
imperceptibly  in  all  parts  of  the  Eastern  continent.  Every  representative 
of  the  United  States  in  Europe  has,  therefore,  a  responsibility  to  see  that  no 
effort  on  his  part  is  wanting  to  make  that  opinion  just,  so  far  as  the  true 
position  of  affairs  in  his  own  country  is  concerned. 

It  cannot  be  necessary  to  discuss  at  large  the  merits  of  the  unhappy  con¬ 
troversy.  It  is  sufficient  to  speak  of  its  nature  and  its  probable  result.  The 
insurrection  strikes  at  the  heart  of  the  nation.  The  country,  so  long  accus¬ 
tomed  to  profound  tranquillity  and  universal  loyalty,  was  slow  to  believe  that 
a  parricidal  purpose  could  be  contemplated  where  it  felt  satisfied  there  was 
no  just  cause  for  serious  discontent.  Our  government  is  at  once  a  purely 
representative  and  simply  federal  one. 

While  the  insurrection  was  gathering,  the  administration  was  practically 
paralyzed  by  the  presence,  in  a  very  large  proportion,  of  the  plotters  and 
abettors  of  the  movement,  in  what,  in  Europe,  would  be  called  the  ministry, 
in  the  legislative,  in  the  army,  in  the  navy,  in  the  customs,  in  the  post  office, 
in  the  diplomatic  and  consular  representations  abroad. 


296 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Seventy  years  of  almost  unbroken  peace  had  brought  agriculture,  mining, 
manufactures,  and  trade  to  the  highest  possible  state  of  activity,  and  the 
people  shrunk  intuitively  from  a  change  of  that  peaceful  activity,  for  not 
merely  war,  but  needless  and  ruinous  civil  war,  which  even  threatens  to 
take  on  the  revolting  character  of  servile  war. 

The  insurgents  skilfully  availed  themselves  of  these  doubts  and  fears,  and 
by  a  course  of  affected  moderation  increased  them.  It  seemed  as  if  the 
nation  would  fall  into  ruins  without  even  putting  forth  an  effort  to  pre¬ 
serve  its  integrity.  You  could  not,  therefore,  have  been  surprised  at 
finding  on  your  arrival  in  Europe  that  the  same  impression  had  obtained 
there,  and  that  the  Union  of  these  States  was  assumed,  in  European  circles, 
to  be  practically  at  an  end.  For  a  time  loyal  citizens  occupied  themselves 
with  trying  how,  by  compromise,  to  avert  a  civil  war,  rather  than  to  accept 
as  inevitable  an  event  so  unnatural  and  so  fearful. 

The  crisis,  however,  came  at  last,  a  few  days  after  your  departure  from  the 
country.  The  insurgents,  with  the  force  gathered  through  immense  pre¬ 
parations  around  a  fortress  in  their  own  locality,  opened  a  terrible  fire  upon 
it,  to  prevent  the  handful  of  men,  which  constituted  the  garrison,  from 
receiving  supplies  when  on  the  verge  of  famine,  and  continued  the  cannonade, 
though  the  barracks  were  in  flames,  and  the  brave  men,  thus  imperilled,  were 
obliged  to  abandon  defence  against  assault  to  save  themselves  from  destruc¬ 
tion  in  another  form.  The  defending  force  consented  to  a  capitulation  dis¬ 
honorable  only  to  their  assailants. 

This  last  and  most  violent  pressure  reached  at  once  the  very  centre  where 
the  elastic  force  of  the  national  spirit  lay  concealed.  The  government  accepted 
the  issue  of  civil  war,  and  sent  forth  its  appeal  to  the  patriotism  of  the 
people.  Never  in  any  age  or  country  was  such  an  appeal  responded  to  with 
so  much  promptness,  enthusiasm,  and  resolution;  and  certainly  never  did 
any  nation  disclose  and  offer  up  at  once  such  exhaustless  resources  for  its 
self-prese  r  v  a  t  i  o  n . 

The  revolution  already  is  upon  the  recoil.  Its  failure  is  certain.  All  that 
remains  is  to  see  what  shall  be  the  measure  of  the  disasters  and  calamities, 
affecting  chiefly  the  insurgents  themselves,  which  are  to  be  endured  before 
they  consent  to  a  restoration  of  peace,  and  to  guarantee  the  inviolability  of 
the  Union. 

Friendly  nations  may  for  a  little  time,  perhaps,  suffer  some  inconvenience 
from  the  blockade  of  the  ports  of  the  insurgent  States,  which  this  govern¬ 
ment  has  found  it  necessary  to  set  on  foot,  as  they  will  justly  take  alarm  at 
the  announcement  that  the  revolutionary  party  have  proclaimed  their  pur¬ 
pose  to  employ  privateers  to  prey  upon  the  commerce  of  the  country.  But 
the  embarrassments  attending  the  first  measure  will  be  mitigated  by  the 
strictness  and  efficiency  with  which  it  will  be  enforced,  and  it  will  not  be 
maintained  a  day  longer  than  is  necessary.  Our  naval  arm  is  already  strong, 
and  it  will  promptly  be  made  stronger,  so  that  the  other  evil  will  be,  as  we 
trust,  effectually  prevented.  ***** 

1  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Bradford  R.  Wood,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


297 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood. 

No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  G,  1861. 

Sir  :  Herewith  I  transmit  a  copy  of  a  despatch  of  the  24th  ultimo,  which 
has  been  addressed  to  the  several  ministers  of  the  United  States  accredited 
to  the  maritime  powers  whose  plenipotentiaries  composed  the  congress  at 
Paris  of  the  16th  of  April,  1856,  calling  their  attention  to  the  importance  of 
endeavoring  to  negotiate  with  those  powers  conventions  upon  the  subject  of 
the  rights  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  in  time  of  war.  The  government  of 
Denmark  was  not  represented  in  the  Paris  congress;  but  the  negotiation  of 
a  similar  convention  with  that  government  is  considered  desirable,  and  you 
will  therefore  be  governed  by  the  instruction  of  which  1  enclose  a  transcript, 
and  endeavor  to  effect  that  object.  With  this  view  I  herewith  send  yon  a 
full  power  and  a  draft  of  the  proposed  convention. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Bradford  R.  Wood,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Copenhagen. 


Mr.  Wood  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  2.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Copenhagen,  July  11,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  the  department  that,  immediately  on  the 
return  of  Mr.  Hall,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  from  Jutland,  and  by  his 
request,  I  met  him  on  the  10th  instant.  His  reception  was  frank  and  cordial, 
and  while  he  alluded  to  the  opinions  held  by  my  predecessor  as  different 
from  mine,  he  expressed  himself  decidedly  in  favor  of  the  administration  and 
against  the  so-called  confederates.  He  also  informed  me  that  the  King  would 
not  return  to  Copenhagen  before  the  last  of  this  month  or  the  beginning  of 
next. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

BRADFORD  R.  WOOD. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Wood  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  4.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Copenhagen ,  July  19,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  the  department  that,  in  an  interview  yes¬ 
terday  with  the  president  of  the  council  and  minister  of  state,  Mr.  Hall,  lie 
readily  acceded  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Paris  convention  in  regard  to  priva¬ 
teering,  though  reluctant,  in  the  present  state  of  European  affairs,  to  adopt 
the  position  of  your  predecessor,  Mr.  Marcy.  He  mentioned  the  fact  that  a 


298 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Danish  man-of-war  had  been  sent  to  the  West  Indies  for  the  purpose  of  pre¬ 
venting  privateering  and  preserving  the  neutrality  of  Denmark. 

The  King  is  still  absent,  in  Jutland,  and  my  reception  as  the  representa¬ 
tive  of  my  government  by  the  minister  of  state,  without  the  formality  of  a 
presentation  to  the  King,  should  be  considered  a  compliment  to  that  govern¬ 
ment. 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain  your  obedient  servant, 

BRADFORD  R.  WOOD. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood. 

No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  1,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  11th  of  July  last  has  been  received,  and  the 
President  instructs  me  to  say  that  the  explanation  of  the  views  of  the  Danish 
government  given  to  you  by  Mr  Hall,  the  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  is  very 
satisfactory. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Bradford  R.  Wood,  Esq.,  fyc.,  §c.,  8fc.,  Copenhagen. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood. 

No.  8.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  22,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatches  to  No.  5,  of  the  26th  ultimo,  have  been  received. 

From  your  No.  4  I  learn,  with  much  satisfaction,  that  the  Danish  govern¬ 
ment  adopts  and  practices  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  and  I 
trust  that  nothing  is  likely  to  occur  to  produce  any  inconvenience  affecting 
the  commerce  with  Denmark,  a  power  with  which  we  have  every  desire  to 
cultivate  the  most  intimate  relations. 

Your  admission  by  the  minister  to  the  duties  of  3rour  mission  under  the 
circumstances  of  the  absence  of  his  Majesty  is  accepted  by  us  as  a  proof  of 
the  friendly  feelings  of  the  government,  deserving  of  especial  acknowledg¬ 
ment. 

The  information  given  in  your  No.  5,  on  the  subject  of  the  purchase  in 
Europe  of  clothing  and  arms  for  the  United  States,  has  been  communicated 
to  the  Secretary  of  War. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Bradford  R.  Wood,  Esq.,  SfC.,  fyc.,  §c.,  Copenhagen. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


299 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Wood. 

No.  9.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  15  (No.  9)  has  been  received. 

The  affair  of  the  place  of  deposit  for  papers  of  Danish  vessels,  to  which 
you  direct  my  attention,  has  been  already  settled  in  a  manner  which  will,  I 
am  sure,  be  entirely  satisfactory  to  the  government  of  Denmark. 

I  can  well  understand  the  depression  you  experienced  on  hearing  of  the 
reverse  of  our  arms  at  Bull  Run,  and  the  unfavorable  comments  on  our  course 
which  this  misfortune  elicits  in  Europe.  There  is,  however,  no  occasion  for 
apprehension  of  an  unfavorable  issue  of  the  present  civil  contest. 

Whatever  speculations  on  the  subject  may  be  made  at  home  or  abroad, 
you  may  be  assured  that  it  is  not  in  our  day  that  treason  is  to  prevail  against 
the  government  in  our  country,  based  as  it  is  on  the  rights  of  man  and  his 
capacity  for  self-government. 

I  am,  sir,  j^our  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Bradford  R.  Wood,  Esq.,  $<?.,  fyc.,  fyc.}  Copenhagen. 


/ 


. 


I 


ITALY. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh.  ■ 


[Extracts.] 


No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  9,  1861. 

Sir:  I  know  that  you  will  be  welcome  at  Turin.  Count  Cavour,  a  true 
exponent  of  the  sentiments  of  a  generous  sovereign,  will  be  rejoiced  to 
receive  from  this  country  a  minister  who  will  not  manifest  repugnance  to 
the  aspirations  of  the  Italian  people  for  liberty  and  unity.  The  government 
of  the  United  States  practices  non-intervention  in  all  other  countries  and  in 
the  controversies  between  them.  You  are  at  liberty,  however,  and,  indeed, 
are  especially  charged,  to  assure  his  Majesty  that  he  is  held  in  high  consul 
eration  by  the  President  and  the  people  of  the  United  States.  You  will 
further  assure  him  that  it  is  a  source  of  sincere  satisfaction  to  this  govern¬ 
ment  that  Italy  seems  to  be  even  more  prosperous  and  happy  now  under 
his  government,  although  enjoying  only  short  respites  from  revolutionary 
struggles  for  independence,  than  it  has  been  at  many  periods  long  gone  by, 
when  despotism  shielded  that  classic  region  from  turbulence  and  civil  com¬ 
motion. 

You  will  learn  from  observation  that  government,  even  when  its  counsels 
are  inspired  by  patriotism  and  humanity,  has  its  trials  and  embarrassments 
as  well  in  Italy  as  elsewhere.  How  to  save  the  country  from  the  ambitious 
designs  of  dangerous  neighbors  on  either  hand — how  to  reconcile  the  national 
passion  for  freedom  with  the  profound  national  veneration  for  ecclesiastical 
authority — how  to  harmonize  the  lassitude  of  society  in  the  Mediterranean 
provinces  with  the  vigor  that  prevails  along  the  Appenines,  and  how  to 
conduct  affairs  with  so  much  moderation  as  to  win  the  confidence  of  the 
conservative  interests,  and  yet  not  to  lose  the  necessary  support  of  the 
propagandists  of  freedom,  are  tasks  witnessed  there  which  will  convince 
the  American  statesman  that  even  in  that  country  the  establishment  and 
maintenance  of  free  government  are  attended  with  difficulties  as  formidable 

as  those  which  sometimes  produce  political  despondency  in  our  own. 
********* 

********* 


Since  the  inauguration  of  the  President  it  has  been  my  duty  to  prepare, 
under  his  directions,  instructions  to  many  of  our  ministers  going  abroad. 
The  burden  of  them  all  has  been,  not  the  ordinary  incidents  of  international 
hospitality  and  commerce,  which  reduce  diplomacy  to  a  monotonous  routine, 
but  the  extraordinary  and  sometimes  alarming  condition  of  our  own  internal 
affairs,  threatened  with  the  complication,  most  of  all  to  be  deprecated,  of 
intervention,  in  some  form  or  other,  by  European  nations. 

This  foreign  danger  arose  chiefly  out  of  the  deplorable  condition  of  affairs 
at  home.  The  administration  found  the  government  disorganized  by  the 
presence  of  disunionists  of  high  position  and  authority  in  all  its  depart¬ 
ments.  Some  time  was  necessary  to  eliminate  them  before  any  decisive 


302 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


policy  could  be  adopted.  It  was,  moreover,  necessary  to  forbear  from  demon¬ 
strations  of  federal  authority  that  might  be  represented  as  aggressive,  to 
allow  the  revolution  to  reveal  its  alarming  proportions  and  boldly  proclaim 
its  desperate  and  destructive  designs. 

It  was  seen  all  the  time  that  these  needful  delays  were  liable  to  be  mis¬ 
understood  abroad,  and  that  the  malcontents  would  endeavor  to  take  advan¬ 
tage  of  them  there.  The  government  has,  therefore,  not  been  surprised, 
although  it  has  been  deeply  grieved,  to  see  the  agents  of  the  revolutionary 
party,  perhaps  even  with  the  concurrence  of  some  of  our  own  demoralized 
ministers  in  Europe,  insidiously  seeking  to  obtain  from  some  of  its  sovereigns 
a  recognition  of  the  projected  treasonable  confederacy. 

It  has  been  no  easy  task  to  study  the  sophisms,  arts,  and  appliances  which 
they  might  be  expected  to  use  in  the  highly  commercial  circles  of  Belgium, 
Paris,  and  London.  It  was  nevertheless  necessary  to  attempt  it,  for  human 
nature  is  at  least  no  more  moral,  just,  or  virtuous  in  courts  than  it  is  in 
private  life.  There  is  no  such  embarrassment,  however,  in  the  present  case. 
It  often  happens  that  foreign  observers,  if  candid,  understand  American 
questions  quite  as  well  as  Americans  themselves.  Botta  and  De  Tocque- 
ville  were  of  this  class. 

So  Count  Cavour  cannot  be  at  any  loss  to  understand  the  present  political 
condition  of  the  United  States 

The  American  revolution  of  1 T 76,  with  its  benignant  results,  was  due  to 
the  happy  combination  of  three  effective  political  ideas:  First,  that  of  eman¬ 
cipation  from  the  distant  European  control  of  Great  Britain;  second,  popular 
desire  for  an  enlargement  of  the  political  rights  of  the  individual  members 
of  the  State  upon  the  acknowledged  theory  of  the  natural  rights  of  man; 
third,  the  want  of  union  among  the  States  to  secure  safety,  tranquillity, 
aggrandizement,  and  fame. 

The  revolution  attempted  in  1861  is  a  spasmodic  reaction  against  the  revo¬ 
lution  of  1776.  It  combines  the  three  ideas  which  were  put  down,  but  not 
extinguished,  in  that  great  war,  namely:  First,  European  authority  to  regu¬ 
late  political  affairs  on  this  continent;  second,  the  aggrandizement  and 
extension  of  human  slavery;  third,  disunion,  dissolution,  anarchy. 

Any  impartial  thinker  can  see  that  an  attempt  at  a  revolution  so  unnatural 
and  perverse  as  this  could  never  have  been  embraced  by  an}7  portion  of  the 
American  people,  except  in  a  moment  of  frenzied  partisan  disappointment; 
that  it  has  no  one  element  of  success  at  home,  and  that  it  is  even  more 
portentous  to  all  other  governments  than  to  our  own.  It  is  painful  to  see 
faction  stalking  abroad  in  one’s  native  land.  But  faction  is  incident  to  every 
state,  because  it  is  inherent  in  human  nature.  We  prefer,  if  it  must  come, 
that  it  come  in  just  its  present  form  and  character.  It  will  perish  by  simply 
coming  to  confront  the  American  people,  for  the  first  time  brought  to  meet 
that  enemy  of  national  peace  and  safety  in  arms.  The  people  are  aroused, 
awakened,  resolute,  and  determined.  The  danger  is,  therefore,  already 
passed.  We  no  longer  fear — indeed,  we  hardly  deprecate — the  disaster  of 
civil  war  brought  upon  us  without  fault.  We  now  see  that  it  may  be 
regarded  as  a  necessary  trial  to  preserve  the  perfection  of  our  Constitution, 
and  to  remove  all  remaining  distrust  of  its  durability  and  its  adaptation  to 
the  universal  wants  of  mankind. 

I  am,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  P.  Marsh,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  Turin. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


303 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh. 


No.  5.] 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  21,  1861. 


Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  2,  written  at  Paris  May  29,  has  been  received. 

The  government  not  only  accepts  your  explanation  of  the  delay  you  have 
made  on  your  way  to  your  post  of  duty,  but  also  appreciates  and  thanks  you 
for  the  faithful  service  you  have  rendered  to  the  country  in  an  important 
crisis  by  your  labors  to  correct  an  erroneous  public  opinion  in  Europe 
through  the  use  of  the  press  in  London. 

We  hear  with  sincere  regret  and  sorrow  of  the  death  of  Count  Cavour,  a 
statesman  honored  none  the  less  by  the  people  of  this  countiy  because  the 
theatre  of  his  labors  is  remote  from  our  own.  If  it  shall  seem  proper  to  you, 
you  may  express  these  sentiments  to  his  Majesty. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


George  P.  Marsh,  Esq.,  &c .,  &c.,  dec.,  Turin. 


Mr.  Dillon  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extracts.] 


United  States  Legation, 

Turin,  June  10,  1861. 


Sir:  Since  my  communication  of  the  16th  of  April  last,  to  announce  my 
arrival  here  the  12th  of  that  month,  from  my  late  post,  Rio  de  Janeiro,  and 
of  my  having  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  my  duties  as  charge  d'affaires 
ad  interim,  the  event  first  in  order  of  importance,  though  not  of  time,  which 
it  is  my  painful  duty  to  communicate,  is  the  sudden  death,  on  the  6th  instant, 
of  his  excellency  the  Count  Camillo  Benso  de  Cavour,  late  president  of  his 
Majesty’s  council  and  minister  of  foreign  affairs.  The  count  was  taken  ill 
on  the  evening  of  the  29th  of  May  last  at  his  residence,  the  hotel  of  his  elder 
brother,  the  Marquis  de  Cavour,  of  what  proved  to  be  typhus  fever.  Inju¬ 
dicious  and  repeated  bleedings  at  the  commencement  of  the  fever,  though,  I 
am  told,  at  his  own  instance,  hastened  the  sad  event. 

The  count  wTas  never  married. 

Europe  still  echoes  with  eulogies  to  his  memory.  Among  the  most 
felicitous  and  important,  as  expressing  at  the  same  time  a  political  pro¬ 
gramme,  is  a  leading  article  in  the  Constitutionnel  of  Paris,  semi-official,  and 
supposed  to  emanate  from  the  Emperor  of  the  French.  I  extract  a  single 
sentence:  “  S’il  y  a  aujourd’  lui  dans  la  peninsule  un  grand  homme  de  moins 
il  y  a,  grace  a  Dieu,  un  grand  peuple  de  plus.  Et  ce peuple  affranchi  ne  sau- 
rait  desormais  retomber  dans  la  servitude.”  In  common  with  my  colleagues, 
of  the  diplomatic  corps,  I  attended  the  funeral  obsequies  in  the  parish 
church  of  the  Madonna  degli  Angel i  the  evening  of  the  Tth  instant,  and  the 
following  morning  the  remains  were  transferred  to  the  burial  vault  of  the 
Cavour  family,  at  Santena,  some  six  miles  distant  from  Turin,  there  to  re¬ 
main — thus  contradicting  the  reports  of  the  public  prints  that,  in  compliance 
with  the  King’s  wish,  they  were  to  be  entombed  in  the  royal  basilica  of  the 


“Exegi  monumentum  a>re  perennius, 
Regalique  situ  pyramidum  altius.” 


Q 


a 


Q 


a 


a 


304 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Shortly  after  my  arrival,  in  consequence  of  the  warlike  disturbances  at 
home,  the  applications,  written  and  verbal,  by  disbanded  officers  and  men  of 
the  late  Garibaldian  army  of  Southern  Italy,  for  enlistment  into  the  United 
States  army,  became  so  numerous  that  I  would  call  attention  to  a  card,  of 
which  I  annex  a  copy,  published  at  my  request  by  his  Majesty’s  government 
in  the  official  paper. 

****** 

The  President’s  proclamations  of  the  19th  and  27th  of  April  last,  received 
at  this  legation,  with  the  circular  from  the  department,  were  by  me  duly 
communicated  to  his  Majesty’s  government,  and  printed  in  extenso  in  the 
Gazetta  Officiate  del  Regno  d\ Italia  the  29th  of  May,  1861. 

*  *  *  *  "  *  * 

His  Majesty  has  summoned  the  Baron  Ricasoli,  a  very  prominent  conser¬ 
vative  member  of  the  chamber  of  deputies,  from  Florence,  to  form  a  new 
ministry,  which,  though  not  yet  announced,  will,  it  is  thought,  be  soon  com¬ 
pleted,  in  continuation  of  the  Favour  policy. 

Mr.  Marsh  has  arrived  at  Turin. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

ROMAINE  DILLON. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretory  of  State,  Washington. 

CARD. 

United  States  Legation, 

Turin,  May  17,  1861. 

In  reply  to  numerous  and  continued  applications  to  this  legation,  by  letter 
and  in  person,  of  foreign  volunteers  for  enlistment  in  the  army  of  the  United 
States  of  America,  the  undersigned  takes  this  public  means  of  declaring 
that  he  has  no  knowledge,  official  or  non-official,  of  any  instructions  of  his 
government  authorizing  any  such  enlistments  out  of  the  United  States. 

ROMAINE  DILLON, 

Charge  dJ Affaires,  &c. 


Mr.  Marsh  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts .] 

No.  3.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Turin,  June  27,  1861. 

Sir  :  The  interruption  of  business  in  the  foreign  office  of  this  government, 
occasioned  by  the  illness  and  death  of  Count  Cavour  and  a  week’s  absence 
of  the  King,  which  immediately  followed  the  formation  of  the  new  ministry, 
prevented  me  from  obtaining  an  audience  of  his  Majesty  for  the  purpose  of 
delivering  my  letters  of  credence  until  Sunday,  the  23d  day  of  this  month. 

On  that  day  I  was  received  by  the  King,  and,  in  accordance  with  my  in¬ 
structions,  conveyed  to  him  assurances  of  the  high  consideration  in  which 
he  is  held  by  the  President  and  people  of  the  United  States,  and  of  their 
satisfaction  in  observing  the  apparent  prosperity  and  happiness  of  Italy 
under  his  Majesty’s  government.  I  further  expressed  the  personal  gratifica- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


305 


tion  I  bad  derived  from  being  selected  to  represent  the  United  States  near 
the  government  of  the  Italian  people — a  people  which  I  had  long  known,  and 
which  had  always  inspired  me  with  deep  interest — and  especially  from  the 
honor  of  being  the  first  diplomate  accredited  to  the  first  King  of  Italy. 

His  Majesty  received  these  remarks  very  graciously,  using  some  terms 
personally  complimentary  to  me,  testified  much  respect  for  the  President  and 
for  yourself,  and  expressed  a  strong  interest  in  the  welfare  and  prosperity  of 
the  United  States,  as  well  as  much  solicitude  for  an  honorable  termination 
of  the  present  contest  between  the  government  and  the  seceding  States. 

The  audience  was  strictly  private,  no  person  but  his  Majesty  and  myself 
being  present,  and  the  interview  was  therefore  of  a  less  formal  character 
than  is  usual  with  royal  receptions.  It  is,  perhaps,  proper  to  add  that  the 
communication  was  conducted  in  French,  which  is  the  usual  language  of  oral 
intercourse  between  foreign  ministers  and  the  sovereign  or  the  heads  of  de¬ 
partments  at  this  court. 

With  Baron  Ricasoli,  the  new  head  of  the  ministry  and  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  I  have  had  several  interviews,  as  well  before  as  since  my  reception 
by  the  King,  and  I  therefore  am  not  aware  that  the  public  interests  have 
sustained  any  detriment  by  the  delay  of  my  official  reception.  In  all  these 
interviews  American  politics  have  formed  a  leading  topic  of  conversation, 
and,  though  Baron  Ricasoli  speaks  with  proper  caution,  the  tenor  of  his  re¬ 
marks  leaves  no  room  for  doubt  that  his  personal  sympathies,  as  well  as 
those  of  his  government,  are  entirely  on  the  side  of  the  President  and  the 
constituted  authorities  of  the  Union  in  their  great  struggle. 

The  first  point  which  I  brought  to  the  notice  of  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  was  the  prevention  of  movements  hostile  to  the  United  States  in  the 
territories  of  the  King  of  Italy.  I  stated  that  I  had  been  led  to  fear  that 
some  attempts  were  making  at  Genoa  to  fit  out  vessels  or  purchase  arms  for 
the  service  of  the  rebels,  and  begged  that  the  attention  of  the  local  authori¬ 
ties  at  Genoa  might  be  drawn  to  the  subject.  Baron  Ricasoli  replied  that 
the  government  would  not  knowingly  permit  any  such  purchases  to  be  made, 
and  that  he  would  request  the  minister  of  the  interior  to  direct  that  the  po¬ 
lice  of  Genoa  should  be  watchful  to  detect  and  prevent  any  negotiations  for 
that  purpose, 

The  suggestions  I  made  to  Baron  Ricasoli  on  this  subject  were  founded 
partly  on  a  letter  from  Mr.  H.  S.  Sanford  and  partly  on  vague  rumors  circu¬ 
lating  here,  which  I  have  been  unable  to  trace  to  any  certain  foundation, 
though  I  have  made  inquiry  in  all  quarters  known  to  me  which  seemed  to 
be  probable  sources  of  information.  In  the  course  of  the  last  week  I  em¬ 
ployed  an  Italian  gentleman,  then  about  to  proceed  to  Genoa,  and  whom  I 
believe  to  be  entirely  trustworthy,  to  investigate  the  subject  on  the  spot. 
He  is  still  absent,  and  as  he  has  not  written  to  me  since  arrivng  at  Genoa 
I  infer  that  he  has  made  no  discoveries. 

I  have  communicated  to  Baron  Ricasoli  the  substance  of  my  instructions 
with  regard  to  the  proposed  convention  for  the  suppression  of  privateering 
and  the  exemption  of  private  property  from  capture  by  national  ships  of  war 
in  certain  cases.  He  replied  that  the  Italian  government  had  not  yet  become 
a  party  to  the  convention  of  1856,  and  added  that  the  pressure  of  business 
on  his  department  would  prevent  his  giving  immediate  attention  to  the  sub¬ 
ject  ;  but  he  expressed  no  objection  to  a  negotiation  on  the  basis  proposed 
in  your  instructions  of  the  24th  of  April,  1 8 G i ,  or  even  on  the  broader  ground 
of  the  total  exemption  of  all  private  property  not  contraband  ol  war  from 
capture  at  sea  by  ships  of  war  in  all  cases. 

The  Italian  parliament  is  now  in  session,  and  will  probably  not  adjourn 
before  the  15th  or  20th  of  July.  The  cabinet  ministers  are  members,  as  in 

20 


306 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


England,  and  regularly  attend  the  sessions,  which  occupy  a  large  part  of 
the  day.  Many  important  topics  are  under  discussion  in  parliament,  and 
still  more  weighty  questions  of  domestic  and  foreign  policy  are  making 
large  demands  on  the  time  and  absorbing  the  thoughts  of  the  administration. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  probable,  as  Baron  Ricasoli  intimated,  that  he  will  be 
able  to  consider  the  subject  of  the  convention  until  the  adjournment  of  the 
national  legislature  shall  leave  him  more  at  leisure.  In  the  meantime  the 
negotiations  with  the  English  and  French  governments  on  the  same  subject 
will  probably  be  brought  to  a  close,  and  the  final  decision  of  the  Italian 
government  will  be  much  influenced  by  that  of  England  and  France. 

The  death  of  Count  Favour,  after  an  illness  of  a  week’s  duration,  and 
which,  for  the  first  few  days,  was  not  of  a  threatening  character,  was  a  great 
shock  to  the  friends  of  constitutional  liberty  and  progress,  and  an  occasion 
of  much  ill-suppressed  exultation  among  the  advocates  of  temporal  and 
spiritual  despotism  throughout  Europe,  and  especially  in  Italy.  To  me,  per¬ 
sonally,  it  is  a  source  of  profound  regret,  both  for  less  selfish  reasons  and 
because  I  had  special  grounds  for  expecting,  more  from  his  often  expressed 
high  regard  for  the  President  and  yourself  than  from  any  other  cause,  agree¬ 
able  private  and  official  relations  with  this  great  statesman. 

The  successor  of  Count  Cavour — and  I  may  apply  the  same  remark  to 
most  if  not  all  of  the  members  of  the  cabinet — is  a  man  of  a  high  order  of 
talent,  of  great  devotion  to  the  interests  of  his  country,  of  the  same  general 
doctrines  of  national  policy  as  his  predecessor,  and  of  sincere  attach¬ 
ment  to  the  principles  of  civil  and  religious  liberty.  The  remarkable  unan¬ 
imity  with  which  the  new  cabinet  is  sustained  by  the  parliament  is  a 
favorable  omen,  so  far  as  respects  the  domestic  success  of  the  government ; 
and  there  is  some  reason  to  think  that  the  death  of  a  prime  minister,  who 
was  regarded  with  so  much  personal  ill  will  by  the  reactionary  party  in 
Italy  and  elsewhere  in  Europe,  may  tend  to  diminish  the  asperity  with 

which  his  policy  has  been  hitherto  opposed  by  that  party. 

*  *  *  *  * 


I  am,  sir,  respectfully  yours, 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


GEO.  P.  MARSH. 


Mr.  Marsh  to  Mr.  Seward . 

[Extracts.] 

No.  5.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Turin ,  Juty  6,  1861. 

Sir:  Having  heard  a  report  that  Mr.  Patterson,  consul  of  the  United  States 
at  Genoa,  expects  a  commission  from  the  Southern  Confederacy  to  act  as 
consul  of  the  rebel  States  at  that  port,  I  called  on  Baron  Ricasoli  yesterday 
morning,  and  protested  against  the  recognition  of  Mr.  Patterson,  or  of  any 
other  person,  as  a  consular  agent  of  the  confederacy. 

Baron  Ricasoli  assured  me  that,  under  present  circumstances,  at  least,  no 
such  agent  would  be  recognized  at  any  Italian  port,  and  he  took  occasion  to 
repeat,  in  strong  language,  the  expression  of  his  own  warm  sympathy  with 
the  federal  government  of  the  United  States,  and  his  earnest  hope  that  the 
present  contest  between  the  government  and  the  seceding  States  would  end 
in  the  re-establishment  of  the  lawful  authority  of  the  Union,  and  be  settled 
on  terms  which  would  secure  the  triumph  of  the  principles  of  freedom,  and 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


307 


the  ultimate  extinction  of  human  slavery.  He  added  that,  in  these  expres¬ 
sions  he  was  speaking  the  sentiments  of  his  Majesty  and  of  the  entire  gov¬ 
ernment  of  which  he  was  a  member. 

I  then  referred  to  apprehensions  which  had  been  expressed  in  America  of 
the  fitting  out  of  privateers  in  remote  Italian  ports  under  the  confederate 
flag.  He  replied  that  the  government  officers  would  endeavor  to  prevent 
such  violations  of  the  laws,  but  that  it  would  be  difficult  to  exercise  a  vigi¬ 
lant  supervision  over  all  the  remote  and  unfrequented  ports  of  the  peninsula 
and  islands,  and  he  advised  the  appointment  of  American  consuls  at  points 
favorable  for  observation  along  the  coasts,  as  a  good  means  of  detecting  and 
preventing  such  movements. 

I  had,  on  the  same  day,  an  audience  of  the  Prince  of  Carignano,  who 
expressed  opinions  and  feelings  similar  to  those  of  Baron  Ricasoli  with 
respect  to  our  present  national  difficulties,  and  I  may  add  that  every  member 
of  the  government,  and  almost  every  gentleman  in  public  life,  with  whom  I 
have  conversed  at  Turin,  coincides  in  these  sentiments. 

'r  ^  'r  'r  *T* 

\Jy  >1/  «  -• 

^  ^  ^ 

The  favorable  sentiments  with  which  the  present  administration  of  the 
federal  government  is  regarded  by  most  continental  statesmen,  are  founded 
(independently  of  the  high  personal  regard  felt  for  the  President  and  his 
constitutional  advisers)  partly  on  the  opinion  that  it  is  sustaining  the  cause 
of  constitutional  authority,  of  the  entirety  of  nationalities  and  of  established 
order  against  causeless  rebellion,  violent  disruption  of  a  commonwealth 
essentially  a  unit,  and  disorganizing  and  lawless  misrule;  but  still  more,  I 
think,  on  the  belief  that  the  struggle  in  which  it  is  now  involved  is  virtually 
a  contest  between  the  propagandists  of  domestic  slavery  and  the  advocates 
of  emancipation  and  universal  freedom.  If  the  civil  war  be  protracted,  I  am 
convinced  that  our  hold  upon  the  sympathy  and  good  will  of  the  govern¬ 
ments,  and  still  more  of  the  people  of  Europe,  will  depend  upon  the  dis¬ 
tinctness  with  which  this  issue  is  kept  before  them,  and  if  it  were  now  pro¬ 
posed  by  the  federal  government  to  purchase  the  submission  of  the  south  by 
any  concession  to  their  demands  on  this  subject,  or  by  assuming  any  attitude 
but  that  of,  at  least,  moral  hostility  to  slavery,  I  have  no  doubt  that  the  dis¬ 
solution  of  the  Union  -would  be  both  desired  and  promoted  by  a  vast  majority 

of  those  who  now  hope  for  its  perpetuation. 

********* 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully  yours, 

GEORGE  P.  MARSH. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh. 


No.  8.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  23,  1801. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  June  21,  No.  3,  has  been  received.  The  account 
it  gives  us  of  your  reception  and  of  the  sentiments  and  feelings  of  the 
Italian  government  in  regard  to  the  United  States  is  very  satisfactory  to  the 
President.  We  are  pleased  with  your  prompt  and  vigilant  attention  to  the 
matters  affecting  the  public  interest,  especially  the  supposed  project  of  fitting 
out  hostile  armaments  at  Genoa. 

Renewing  my  best  wishes  for  the  prosperity  of  Italy  under  the  new  min¬ 
istry  so  happily  inaugurated,  I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

PP  ^  WILLIAM  11.  SEWARD. 

George  P.  Marsh,  Esq.,  »$c.,  c .,  §c.,  Turin. 


308 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  J\Ir.  Marsh. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  1 L.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  July  30,  1861. 

'i'  •r'  'P  'r  'C 

You  will  express  to  Baron  Ricasoli  the  high  appreciation  which  this  govern¬ 
ment  entertains  of  his  decision  in  regard  to  our  affairs. 

You  will  be  pained  by  the  intelligence  of  a  reverse  of  our  arms  near 
Manassas  Junction,  and  I  fear  it  will,  for  a  time,  operate  to  excite  apprehen¬ 
sions  and  encourage  the  enemies  of  the  Union  in  Europe;  but  the  blow  has 
already  spent  its  force  here  without  producing  any  other  effect  than  renewed 
resolution  and  confidence  in  the  success  of  the  government.  The  lesson  that 
war  capnot  be  waged  successfully  without  wisdom  as  well  as  patriotism  has 
been  received  at  a  severe  cost;  but,  perhaps,  it  was  necessary.  It  is  certain 
that  we  are  improving  upon  it. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  P.  Marsh,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Turin. 


Mr.  Marsh  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  14. J  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Turin ,  September  2,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith  a  copy  of  a  note  addressed  by 
me  to  Baron  Ricasoli  on  the  26th  ultimo,  in  relation  to  the  proposed  conven¬ 
tion  for  the  accession  of  the  United  States  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress 
of  Paris  in  1856. 

By  my  instructions,  under  date  of  April  24,  1861,  I  am  directed  as  follows: 
“  To  ascertain  whether  it  (the  government  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy) 
is  disposed  to  enter  into  negotiations  for  the  accession  6f  the  United  States 
to  the  declaration  of  the  Paris  congress,  with  the  conditions  annexed  by  that 
body  to  the  same;  and  if  you  shall  find  the  government  so  disposed,  you  will 
then  enter  into  a  convention  to  that  effect,  substantially  in  the  form  of  a 
project  for  that  purpose  herewith  transmitted  to  you.” 

The  project  transmitted  with  the  instructions  makes  no  mention  of  the 
important  conditions  referred  to  in  the  instructions,  and  therefore,  in  drawing 
up  the  note,  I  thought  it  best  not  to  notice  the  conditions  specifically,  but  to 
make  the  proposal  in  general  terms,  leaving  that  point  to  be  arranged,  if  sug¬ 
gested  by  the  Italian  government,  as  I  shall  be  instructed  hereafter. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  high  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  P.  MARSH. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


309 


Mr.  Marsh  to  Baron  Ricasoli. 


Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Turin,  August  26,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary  of 
the  United  States  of  America,  as  he  had  the  honor  to  state  in  one  of  his 
first  interviews  with  his  excellency  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  is  in¬ 
structed  to  propose  the  negotiation  of  a  convention  between  the  government 
of  the  United  States  and  the  government  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy 
for  defining  the  rights  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  in  maritime  warfare,  in 
accordance  with  the  principles  adopted  by  the  congress  of  Paris  in  the  year 
1856. 

Similar  instructions  have  been  given  by  the  President  to  the  American 
ministers  at  the  courts  of  the  other  maritime  powers,  and  negotiations  to 
that  effect  are  now  in  progress  with  all  the  governments  represented  at  the 
congress  of  Paris. 

It  will  be  remembered  by  his  excellency  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs 
that  in  the  year  1854  the  President  of  the  United  States  submitted  to  the 
several  maritime  nations  two  propositions,  to  which  he  solicited  their  assent 
as  permanent  principles  of  international  law. 

These  were  : 

1.  Free  ships  make  free  goods — that  is  to  say,  that  the  effects  or  goods 
belonging  to  subjects  or  citizens  of  a  power  or  state  at  war  are  free  from 
capture  or  confiscation  when  found  on  board  of  neutral  vessels,  with  the 
exception  of  articles  contraband  of  war. 

2.  That  the  property  of  neutrals  on  board  an  enemy’s  vessel  is  not  subject 
to  confiscation,  unless  the  same  be  contraband  of  war. 

These  propositions  were  favorably  entertained  by  most  of  the  govern¬ 
ments  to  which  they  were  submitted,  but  no  formal  convention  for  their 
recognition  was  negotiated  between  them  and  the  United  States. 

The  congress  of  Paris,  at  which  most  of  the  European  powers  were  rep¬ 
resented,  adopted,  upon  the  16th  of  April,  1856,  an  agreement  embracing 
substantially  these  principles,  with  two  additional  propositions;  all  of  which 
were  embodied  in  a  declaration  composed  of  four  articles,  namely: 

1.  Privateering  is  and  remains  abolished. 

2.  The  neutral  flag  covers  enemy’s  goods,  with  the  exception  of  contra¬ 
band  of  war. 

3.  Neutral  goods,  writh  the  exception  of  contraband  of  war,  are  not  liable 
to  capture  under  enemy’s  flag. 

4.  Blockades,  in  order  to  be  binding,  must  be  effective — that  is  to  say, 
maintained  by  a  force  sufficient  really  to  prevent  access  to  the  coast  of  the 

enemy. 

The  congress  further  agreed  to  invite  the  maritime  states  not  represented 
in  that  body  to  accede  to  these  propositions,  and  the  assent  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  was  asked  to  them  accordingly. 

The  then  President  of  the  United  States,  Franklin  Pierce,  did  not  accede 
to  the  stipulations  of  the  convention,  but  proposed  an  amendment  to  the 
first  article  which  should  exempt  the  private  property  of  individuals,  though 
belonging  to  belligerent  states,  from  seizure  or  confiscation  by  national  ves¬ 
sels  in  maritime  war;  and  the  ministers  of  the  United  States  at  Paris  and 
London  were  instructed  to  inform  the  governments  to  which  they  were  ac¬ 
credited  that  the  United  States  would  accede  to  the  four  points  above 
recited,  provided  the  first  of  them  should  be  amended  to  the  effect  proposed 
by  the  President. 


310 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Neither  of  these  governments  is  understood  to  have  objected  to  this 
amendment,  but  the  negotiations  were  not  prosecuted  to  a  conclusion. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  adheres  to  the  opinion  expressed  by 
his  predecessor,  that  it  would  be  eminently  desirable  for  the  good  of  all  na¬ 
tions  that  the  property  and  effects  of  private  individuals,  not  contraband, 
should  be  exempt  from  seizure  and  confiscation  by  national  vessels  in  mari¬ 
time  war.  But  the  proposal  to  that  effect  not  having  been  accepted  by  the 
nations  represented  in  the  congress  of  1856,  he  now  offers  to  accede  to  the 
invitation  of  the  powers,  and  to  accept  the  declaration  promulgated  by  it, 
deferring  to  a  future  occasion  the  further  prosecution  of  negotiations  for 
the  general  adoption  of  the  amendment  above  specified. 

The  undersigned  is  invested  with  full  powers  to  conclude,  on  the  part  of 
the  President,  a  convention  between  the  government  of  the  United  States 
and  that  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Italy  for  the  adoption  of  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  and  begs  leave  to  invite  the  attention  of  his 
excellency  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  the  proposal. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  his  excel¬ 
lency  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  the  assurance  of  his  most  distinguished 
consideration. 

GEORGE  P.  MARSH. 

His  Excellency  Baron  Ricasoli, 

President  of  the  Council  and  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh. 

No.  18.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  20,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  26th,  No.  12,  has  been  received. 

I  send  you,  in  confidence,  a  copy  of  my  latest  instructions  to  Mr.  Adams  and 
Mr.  Dayton,  from  which  you  will  learn  that  the  negotiations  with  Great  Britain 
and  France  for  an  accession  to  the  declaration  of  the  congress  at  Paris  have 
been  suspended,  and  the  causes  of  the  suspension. 

We  are  desirous  to  act  in  good  faith,  and  to  acquit  ourselves  of  all  responsi¬ 
bility  for  the  failure  of  negotiations  with  enlightened  powers  for  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  the  interests  of  peace  and  humanity;  and  yet  we  are  at  the  same  time 
resolved  to  maintain  the  independent  position  and  the  dignity  of  our  govern¬ 
ment.  We  therefore  hold  ourselves  ready  to  perfect  a  convention  with  the 
government  of  Italy  for  our  accession;  and  at  the  same  time  you  will  not 
urge  the  proposition  against  any  disinclination  which  that  government  may 
express  or  intimate. 

We  shall  be  the  friend  of  Italy;  and  Italy,  we  are  sure,  cannot  be  other¬ 
wise  than  friendly  to  us,  no  matter  what  treaty  relations  exist  or  fail  to  be 
made. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  P.  Marsh,  Esq.,  dc.,  fyc.,  Turin. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


311 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Marsh. 

No.  32.1  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  22,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  your  despatch  of  October  29,  (No.  29.) 

The  British  and  French  governments,  which  stand  at  the  head  of  the 
maritime  powers,  having  declined  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of  Paris 
without  conditions  which  the  United  States  cannot  yield,  there  is  no  important 
object  to  be  attained  by  pressing  the  same  upon  other  powers.  You  will 
therefore  let  the  matter  rest  in  Italy  for  the  present. 

I  think  that  when  at  no  distant  day  it  shall  need  to  be  renewed,  the  interest 
that  shall  move  it  forward  will  appear  first  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic, 

It  is  a  matter  of  regret  that  we  cannot  consistently  offer  special  induce¬ 
ments  to  military  gentlemen  in  Italy  who  are  unable  to  defray  their  own 
expenses  in  coming  to  join  our  armies;  but  we  are  forbidden  to  do  so  by 
urgent  considerations.  First,  we  do  not  need  to  solicit  foreign  aid,  and  we 
naturally  desire  to  avoid  the  appearance  of  doing  so.  Secondly,  we  wish  to 
abstain  from  intrusion  into  the  domestic  concerns  of  foreign  states,  and,  of 
course,  from  seeming  to  do  so.  Thirdly,  our  own  countrymen  are  coming 
forward  with  just  claims  upon  all  positions  requiring  skill  in  the  art  of  war, 
and  we  must  avoid  jealousies  between  native  and  foreign  defenders  of  the 
Union.  Already  the  forces  in  the  field  exceed  half  a  million,  and  the  officers 
charged  with  organizing  them  report  to  us  that  those  recently  recruited  will 
swell  the  number  to  seven  hundred  thousand.  If  the  insurrection  should 
continue,  it  will  be  more  difficult  to  keep  them  down  to  a  million  than  to  lift 
them  up  to  that  figure.  Still,  we  do  not  yet  revoke  what  we  have  thus  far 
said,  and  we  will  receive  from  Europe  those  who  may  come. 

A  consul  will  be  appointed  for  Ancona. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  P.  Marsh,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Turin. 


. 


■ 


. 


SWITZERLAND. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Fogg. 

No.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  May  15,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  delayed  giving*  you  the  President’s  instructions  so  long 
because  I  was  preoccupied.  For  the  first  time  in  our  history  the  standard 
of  civil  war  has  been  raised  with  the  purpose  of  overthrowing  the  federal 
republic.  It  is  a  cardinal  point  with  the  seditious  in  modern  revolutions  to 
gain  aid,  or  at  least  sympathy,  in  foreign  countries.  That  sympathy  is 
sought  in  the  form  of  recognition  of  the  simulated  sovereignty  set  up  by 
faction.  An  act  of  recognition  carries  moral  weight,  and  material  aid  is 
expected  soon  to  follow  it.  No  state  ought  to  lend  its  support  to  revolu¬ 
tion  in  a  foreign  country  except  upon  motives  of  justice  and  humanity.  But 
in  point  of  fact  these  motives  seldom  prevail,  and  nations  generally  act  in 
such  cases  upon  calculations  of  profit  or  ambition,  or  in  the  wantonness  of 
mere  caprice.  It  is  well  understood  here  that  the  revolutionary  faction  has 
its  agents  abroad,  soliciting  European  powers  to  intervene  in  this  unhappy 
civil  war.  It  has  therefore  been  my  duty,  under  the  President’s  authority, 
to  instruct  our  representatives  there  how  to  meet  them  and  counteract  their 
designs.  I  could  easily  imagine  that  either  Great  Britain,  France,  Russia, 
Austria,  Prussia,  Belgium,  Spain,  or  even  Denmark,  might  suppose  that  it 
could  acquire  some  advantage,  or  at  least  some  satisfaction  to  itself,  from  a 
change  that  should  abridge  the  dominion,  the  commerce,  the  prosperity,  or 
influence  of  the  United  States.  Each  of  them  might  be  believed  to  have 
envious  sentiments  towards  us,  which  would  delight  in  an  opportunity  to 
do  us  harm.  I  have  therefore  first  addressed  myself  to  the  consideration  of 
our  relations  with  those  countries.  It  is  otherwise  with  Italy  and  Switzer¬ 
land.  The  former  is  yet  hotly  engaged  in  the  struggle  to  secure  freedom 
and  unity,  and  the  latter  enviably  distinguished  by  the  rare  enjoyment  of 
both.  Human  nature  must  lose  not  only  the  faculty  of  reason  which  lifts  it 
above  the  inferior  beings,  but  also  the  benevolence  which  lifts  it  up  to  com¬ 
mune  with  superior  orders  of  existence,  when  the  security,  welfare,  and 
happiness  of  the  United  States  shall  have  become  even  a  matter  of  indif¬ 
ference  to  Italy  or  Switzerland.  I  salute  Switzerland  last  among  the 
European  nations  only  because  we  esteem  and  confide  in  her  most. 

You  will  say  this,  or  anything  else  that  may  occur  to  you  that  would 
more  pleasantly  or  more  effectually  assure  the  government  of  Switzerland 
of  the  cordial  good  wishes  cherished  for  it  by  the  President  and  the  people 
of  the  United  States. 

You  will,  of  course,  need  to  say  nothing  to  the  government  on  the  subject 
of  the  domestic  difficulties  to  which  I  have  already  adverted.  You  will, 
nevertheless,  not  be  absolutely  free  from  all  responsibility  on  this  head. 
You  are  in  a  region  where  men  of  inquiring  mind  and  active  habit  seek  a 
temporary  respite  from  severe  studies  and  exhausting  labors.  The  world’s 
affairs  are  discussed  freely,  and  the  sentiments  and  opinions  which  influence 
the  conduct  and  affect  the  prospects  of  nations  are  very  often  formed  in  the 


314 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


mountains  and  dells  of  Switzerland.  You  will  meet  there,  if  no  others, 
many  of  our  own  fellow-citizens,  doubtlessly  of  both  classes — the  disloyal, 
sometimes,  as  well  as  those  who  are  loyal  to  the  Constitution  and  the  Union. 
Improve  the  calmness  and  candor  which  the  contemplation  of  nature 
inspires  to  dissuade  the  discontented  American  from  his  unnatural  course 
and  pernicious  convictions,  and  to  excite  the  loyal  to  return  home  as 
speedily  as  possible  to  speak,  to  vote,  and,  if  need  be,  to  enrol  himself  as  a 
soldier  or  a  sailor  in  the  land  or  naval  forces  for  the  defence  of  his  country, 
of  freedom,  knd  of  mankind. 

Seventy  years  of  tranquillity  and  harmony,  unparalleled  in  the  experience 
of  states,  have  made  us  misunderstand  the  stage  in  our  national  career  at 
which  we  have  arrived.  We  had  to  prove,  by  demonstration  in  war,  that 
these  institutions  are  adapted  to  defence  against  aggression,  and  even  for 
aggrandizement  of  empire.  The  proof  was  given,  and  the  world  has  nobly 
confessed  the  truth  established. 

We  assumed  that  faction  could  not  gain  consistency  and  make  head  under 
institutions  so  free,  so  equal,  so  just,  and  so  beneficent.  This  was  a  mistake 
less  in  regard  to  our  institutions  than  in  regard  to  human  nature  itself.  But 
self-complacent,  and  consequently  self-deceived,  we  have  come  all  of  a  sudden 
to  meet  the  emergency  of  civil  war,  and  we  find  ourselves  obliged  to  demon¬ 
strate  that  our  government  is  adapted  to  resist  and  overcome  domestic  faction. 
It  is  a  momentous  but  necessary  trial.  Perhaps  it  has  not  come  too  soon. 
Certainly  we  have  no  apprehension  of  failure.  Revolutions  are  seldom 
successful,  even  wdien  they  have  just  causes.  Revolution  without  a  good 
cause,  amounting  to  absolute  necessity,  is  never  possible  in  a  country  where 
stable  government  is  at  all  known  by  experience  of  its  blessings.  The 
present  attempt  at  revolution  is  based  on  no  alleged  experience  of  oppression. 
It  puts  forth  only  apprehensions  of  danger  of  oppression,  which  the  form  of 
the  Constitution  and  the  experience  of  its  actual  working  proves  to  be 
altogether  impossible.  It  is  a  revolution  originating  only  in  disappointed 
personal  ambition.  Personal  ambition  is  the  least  effective  of  all  the  political 
agencies  that  can  be  found  in  an  extended  federal  republic.  The  revolution 
aims  at  the  life  of  the  country.  It  gathers  the  support  of  only  that  small, 
though  very  active,  class  of  persons  who  are  so  thoughtless  as  to  be  insensible 
to  the  importance  of  having  a  country  to  protect  and  defend,  with  benefit  to 
themselves  and  their  posterity.  Against  it  are  arrayed  the  larger  portion  of 
our  people  with  whom  love  of  country  is  the  first  and  strongest  of  all  the  social 
passions — that  holy  sentiment  which  in  mature  life  is  the  strongest  passion 
of  our  common  humanity. 

Tell  the  Swiss  republic,  then,  that  with  God’s  blessing  we  will  preserve 
this  model  of  federal  republican  government  by  which  they  have  reformed 
their  institutions,  and  we  invoke  them  to  retain  their  own  with  no  less 
fidelity.  So  Switzerland  and  the  United  States  shall  in  after  ages  be  honored 
as  the  founders  of  the  only  true  and  beneficent  system  of  human  government — 
a  system  that  harmonizes  needful  authority  with  the  preservation  of  the 
natural  rights  of  man.  Every  free  citizen  of  Switzerland  who  comes  here, 
so  long  as  he  remains,  is  practically  a  citizen  of  the  United  States.  He  goes 
in  and  out  everywhere  unchallenged.  Nevertheless,  the  American  citizen  in 
Switzerland  is  a  stranger,  and  the  reiterated  demand  for  his  passport  at 
every  angle  in  his  course  reminds  him  painfully  that  he  is  suspected.  His 
least  elevated  motive  for  going  there  is  trade  and  commerce  ;  but  the  objects 
of  most  of  our  citizens  in  visiting  Alpine  countries  are  health  and  study  of 
the  more  sublime  and  attractive  features  of  nature  and  a  fervent  admiration 
for  the  free  people  who  dwell  among  them.  In  the  United  States  there  is 
not  one  man  base  enough  to  do  or  wish  an  injury  to  the  enlightened  govern¬ 
ment  or  to  the  people  of  Switzerland.  Why,  then,  should  not  the  government 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


315 


of  that  country  make  us  conscious  of  its  confidence  by  allowing1  us  the 
enjoyment  of  national  hospitality  while  we  are  sojourning  in  their  beautiful 
country? 

Please  bring  this  subject  to  the  consideration  of  the  authorities,  and  if 
you  find  them  well  disposed  you  will  be  authorized  to  conclude  a  convention 
with  them  on  the  subject. 

We  very  much  want  good  a  history  of  the  Swiss  Confederacy  since  its 
reformation,  especially  showing  how  faction  developes  itself  there,  and  how 
the  government  works  in  preventing  or  suppressing  designs  subversive  of 
the  federal  unity  of  the  republic  The  President  hopes  that  you  will  furnish 
it,  as  he  knows  your  ability  for  such  a  task. 

Please  also  send  to  the  department  a  copy  of  the  fullest  and  best  history 
of  the  Swiss  Confederation,  (perhaps  Muller’s.)  It  is  desirable,  not  onl}7 
with  a  view  to  accurate  information  upon  the  points  just  adverted  to,  but 
also  with  reference  to  the  legislation  and  its  causes  of  the  respective 
members  of  the  confederation  with  regard  to  the  Israelites,  a  subject  in 
relation  to  which  your  predecessor  has  had  much  correspondence  with  that 
government. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  G.  Fogg,  Esq., 

&c.,  &c.,  &c.,  Berne. 


Mr.  Fay  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  421.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berne ,  May  18,  1861. 

Sir  : 

«J/  vl/  ^ 

^  ^ 

Referring  to  my  No.  411,  I  communicated,  in  addition  to  the  English 
printed  copy  of  the  inaugural  of  the  President,  a  carefully  made  German 
translation.  I  have  some  reason  to  suppose  that  the  commissioners  of  the 
seceded  States  were,  or  would  soon  be,  in  Paris,  and  as  Mr.  Dudley  Mann 
was  informally  my  predecessor  in  Berne,  and  has  personal  friends  in  the 
governmental  regions,  and  might  profit  by  the  occasion  to  slip  over  from 
London  or  Paris,  I  had  another  interview  on  the  subject  this  morning  with 
President  Kniisel.  A  very  severe  illness  had  kept  me  some  time  from  seeing 
him.  As  I  have  received  not  a  word  from  the  department  with  regard  to 
my  recall,  I  have  not  communicated  officially  with  the  government  upon  the 
subject,  but  the  President  commenced,  and  I  am  unwilling  to  repeat  his 
friendly  remarks.  He  alluded,  however,  to  the  affair  of  Neuchatel,  and  said 
I  must  not  think  the  government  had  forgotten  the  services  1  had  rendered 
to  Switzerland,  and  particularly  on  that  occasion.  lie  repeated  several  times; 
but  I  will  not  dwell  furtheru  pon  this  point. 

I  asked  if  they  had  any  news  of  the  commissioners  of  the  seceded 
States,  and  said  I  thought  they  might  perhaps  pay  Berne  a  visit.  I  then 
addressed  to  him  some  earnest  words  upon  a  subject  in  which  my  whole 
heart  is  interested.  I  told  him  my  public  and  private  intelligence  convinced 
me  that  the  movement  of  the  south  would  be  suppressed  ;  that  it  was  as 
insane  as  it  was  guilty;  that  the  slowly  rising  spirit  of  the  north,  and  the 
calm  and  efficient  preparations  made  by  the  President,  would,  in  due  time, 


316 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


bring  it  to  a  termination;  that  the  United  States  had  always  loved  Swit¬ 
zerland,  but  that  I  did  not  expect  from  him  any  sentimental  engagements. 
I  wished,  however,  officially  to  express  the  opinion  of  my  government,  and, 
privately,  my  own  deep  conviction,  that  the  wise  course  of  Switzerland 
would  be  a  flat  refusal  to  receive,  in  any  way,  the  commissioners  of  the 
revolted  States  ;  that  a  different  course  would  be  painfully  remembered, 
while  a  prompt  action  in  this  direction  would  surely  draw  much  closer  the 
bonds  of  friendship  between  the  two  republics.  I  called  his  attention  to 
the  proclamation  of  the  British  government,  in  which  the  seceded  States 
are  termed  the  “  so-called  Confederate  States.” 

The  President  warmly  acquiesced,  and  assured  me  that  he  completely 
shared  my  opinion. 

'I'  vL»  \V  vU  vl/ 

'i'  'T*  ^ 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  obedient 
servant, 

THEO.  S.  FAY. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Fay  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract  ] 


No.  426.] 
Sir  : 


United  States  Legation, 

Berne ,  June  3,  1861. 

*  *  *  * 


Mr.  Fogg  has  not  yet  arrived,  although  the  telegraph  announces  that  he 
is  in  London.  Everything  is  ready  for  him  here. 

A  despatch  for  him  has  been  received  but  not  opened.  Your  circulars  of 
April  27  and  of  May  6  have  been  received.  The  copies  of  the  proclama¬ 
tion  have  been  communicated  to  the  federal  council. 

»•/  «i/  ^  4/ 

/j\  /j\  /j'  'T' 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  obedient 
servant, 

THEO.  S.  FAY. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Fay  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  428.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berne ,  June  7,  1861. 

gIR.  ******** 

I  had  an  earnest  conversation  with  Mr.  Frei  Herosee  on  the  subject  of  the 
possibility  of  the  reception  of  any  southern  agent.  He  is  an  old  friend  of  Mr. 
Dudley  Mann.  He  is  also  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  influential  members  of 
the  federal  council  and  founders  of  the  government,  and  has  been  several 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


317 


times  President.  He  confirmed  warmly  all  that  President  Knlisel  bad  said, 
and  in  plainer  terms.  Switzerland,  he  said,  had  always  opposed  rebellion  and 
revolution  everywhere.  He  alluded,  I  presume,  to  the  days  of  1848,  during 
which  this  republic  acted  with  equal  liberality  and  wisdom.  She  has  herself 
passed  through  the  same  ordeal  as  that  through  which  God  is  now  leading 
us,  and  she  knows  what  it  is  for  foreign  powers  to  cast  the  weight  of  their 
open  encouragement  or  secret  intrigue  into  the  wrong  scale.  Whatever 
importance  may  be  attached  to  the  course  which  Switzerland  may  pursue 
on  this  point,  I  am  almost  positive  no  agent  would  be  received. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  obedient 
servant, 

THEO.  S.  FAY. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Fay  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  431.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berne ,  July  2,  1861. 

Sir:  It  is  with  the  permission  of  my  successor,  whom  I  learn  to  regard  as 
a  friend,  that  I  address  to  you  this  my  closing  despatch. 

I  have  placed  him  in  possession  of  the  legation  office  records,  cipher, 
library,  furniture,  and  all  things  pertaining  to  it.  An  inventory  has  been 
prepared,  from  the  despatch  books,  of  everything  received;  and  he  will 
doubtless  inform  you  that  he  has  verified  it. 

Yesterday,  July  1,  he  accompanied  me  to  the  Palais  PeCAral,  where  we 
were  received  in  the  state  reception-room  by  the  president  and  by  the  sec¬ 
retary  of  the  federal  chancery,  Mr.  Leutscher.  I  handed  in  my  letter  of 
recall,  and  read,  in  German,  the  remarks  I  had  prepared.  I  then  formally 
presented  my  successor,  who  gave  his  lettre  de  cre'ance,  and  who  requested 
me  to  read  a  German  translation  of  his  remarks,  which  I  did.  The  president 
then  replied  to  the  latter.  I  have  the  honor  to  subjoin  these  documents  in 
English. 

Some  conversation  then  ensued  of  a  friendly  character.  On  leaving,  the 
president  informed  me  he  would  make  me  a  visit,  and,  taking  me  warmly  by 
the  hand,  he  said,  (alluding  to  Neuchatel,)  “we  shall  never  forget  what  you 
have  done  for  us.”  We  then  drove  to  all  the  legations,  and  I  presented  the 
new  minister  to  the  chefs  demission,  commencing  with  the  French  ambassador, 
the  Marquis  de  Turgot.  It  gives  me  pleasure  to  say  Mr.  Fogg  obviously 
made  a  favorable  impression,  and  that  it  is  a  sincere  satisfaction  for  me  to 
see  in  my  place  a  gentleman  who  I  have  no  doubt  will  represent  with  dig¬ 
nity  the  new  country,  which  God  is  disengaging  from  elements  irreconcilable 
with  its  character  as  a  Christian  republic. 

In  my  remarks  to  the  president  I  thought  it  a  proper  occasion  publicly  to 
record  my  opinion,  that  I  might  throw  into  the  scale  the  influence,  however 
small,  which  I  might  possess  from  my  long  residence  in  Europe. 

With  regard  to  the  French  and  English  declarations  of  neutrality,  the 
enclosed  extract  from  the  “New  York  Commercial  Advertiser”  emboldened 
me  to  express  the  hope  that  those  governments,  whatever  might  have  been 


318 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


their  original  intention,  would  be  careful  as  to  the  manner  of  applying  the 
principle  adopted. 

*******  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  obedient 
servant, 

THEO.  S.  FAY. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Fay’s  parting  remarks  to  the  president  of  the  Swiss  confederation. 

Mr.  President.  I  have  the  honor  to  hand  to  your  excellency  my  letter  of 
recall,  and  to  present  my  estimable  successor,  against  whom  I  have  only 
one  objection — that  he  will,  I  am  afraid,  perform  the  duties  of  his  office 
better  than  I  have  done.  I  am  instructed  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States  on  this  occasion  to  repeat  his  sincere  desire  to  oontinue  to  cultivate 
with  you  relations  of  the  closest  friendship. 

I  resigned  my  appointment  as  minister  in  Switzerland,  not  that  I  had  any 
power  or  right  to  retain  it  contrary  to  the  President’s  wish,  but  I  thought  it 
my  duty,  from  certain  considerations.  This  course  was  not  induced  by  any 
discontent  with  Switzerland.  On  the  contrary,  I  admire  and  love  Switzer¬ 
land.  In  my  official  transactions  with  the  government,  and  with  the  different 
members  of  it,  I  have  always  found  good  sense  and  loyaute,  and  my  private 
intercourse  with  the  nation  has  caused  it  to  rise  always  more  in  my  esteem. 
I  have  been  struck  with  the  pure  administration  of  justice,  the  universal 
love  of  country,  the  modest  and  yet  effective  character  of  the  governments, 
and  with  the  liberty  of  conscience  asserted  by  superior  authorities,  even 
where  embarrassed  by  local,  contrary  influences.  Switzerland  is  peculiarly 
blessed  by  the  Almighty,  and  she  has  it  in  her  power,  under  Him,  to  be  the 
happiest  country  in  the  world.  Your  free  development  in  your  present  form 
is  a  necessity  for  Europe. 

Neither  has  my  resignation  resulted  from  difference  of  opinion  with  the 
President  of  the  United  States.  Our  country  is  now  occupied  in  a  struggle 
with  an  institution  as  unmanageable  as  the  hydra  of  Hercules.  It  is  not 
my  wish  to  misrepresent  the  proprietors  of  slaves.  Many  of  them  are  sin¬ 
cere,  Christian  gentlemen.  But  the  institution  in  its  present  form  is  irrecon¬ 
cilable  with  our  national  existence,  with  the  religious  sentiment  of  the  majority, 
and  with  the  Word  of  God.  Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  the  right  and  duty 
of  the  American  people  to  protect  themselves  from  its  uncontrolled  develop¬ 
ment,  and  from  being  drawn  downwards  in  their  career  of  political  and 
religious  civilization.  Man  should  not  live  by  braec  alone,  nor  by  cotton 
alone. 

The  election  of  President  Lincoln  is  the  expression  of  this  sentiment.  The 
struggle  in  which  he  is  engaged  is  one  of  light  with  darkness.  Every 
Christian  government  in  the  world  must  be  on  his  side,  for  he  represents 
humanity,  liberty,  civilization,  and  religion.  He  represents  also  the  principle 
of  rational,  popular  government,  and  his  course  thus  far  has  given  reason  to 
believe  that  he  has  been  raised  up  by  God  to  steer  our  nation  through  this 
tempest,  by  a  union  of  moderation  with  energy,  and  of  rapid  decision  with 
patient  mercy  and  calm  wisdom,  if  no  encouragement  from  without  be  offered 
to  the  insurrection.  No  one  who  prefers  good  to  evil  would  place  an  obstacle 
in  his  path. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


319 


The  movement  of  certain  southern  States — not  to  say  persons — represents 
not  only  rebellion  against  a  Constitution  and  laws  framed  or  freely  accepted 
by  themselves,  but  negro  slavery  and  the  African  slave  trade  as  one  of  its 
inevitable  consequences.  It  represents  also  one  of  the  greatest  crimes 
recorded  in  history — a  black,  secret,  long-matured,  treacherous  conspiracy, 
extending  its  ramifications  into  European  countries,  which,  among  other 
objects,  aimed  at  the  conquest  of  Cuba,  Mexico,  and  Brazil,  as  the  basis  of  a 
great,  despotic,  and  African  slave-trade  empire,  and  which,  by  the  mercy  of 
God,  must  be  shipwrecked  against  the  steady  firmness  of  the  President,  the 
honesty,  the  patriotism,  and  the  religious  sentiment  of  the  American  people. 
You  will  judge,  Mr.  President;  also  your  government  and  your  people; 
Europe  and  history  will  also  judge  how  far  any  government,  nation,  or  public 
press,  can,  consistently  with  its  character,  approve  or  in  any  way  encourage 
such  an  enterprise,  unless  ignorant  of  its  true  nature.  I  have  no  doubt  this 
insurrection,  although  it  has  reached  such  proportions,  will  be  suppressed. 
We  have  the  power,  the  right,  and  the  will  to  suppress  it.  It  is  not  a  war 
between  two  powers  entitled  to  equal  international  rights,  any  more  than 
the  rebellion  in  India  was  an  international  war.  It  is  an  insurrection,  and 
nothing  more,  and  one  of  the  most  unreasonable  and  unjust  which  the  world 
has  ever  seen.  The  American  Union,  carried  out  according  to  its  original 
intentions,  offers  to  rapidly  increasing  millions  material  prosperity,  political 
and  religious  liberty.  It  is  a  blessiug  for  mankind;  whereas  the  rise  of  a 
southern  empire,  built  on  such  foundations,  and  aiming  at  such  designs, 
could  not  but  be  a  misfortune  for  itself  and  for  all  the  world.  It  is  one  of 
the  signs  of  our  times  that  error  not  only  boldly  raises  its  head,  but  that  it 
invites,  with  effrontery,  the  assistance  of  others,  and  sometimes  receives 
encouragement  from  quarters  where  it  would  least  be  expected.  I  here  in 
no  way  allude  to  the  declarations  of  neutrality  lately  proclaimed  by  two 
great  powers,  but  to  opinions  expressed  by  several  journals.  The  declara¬ 
tions  of  neutrality  have  been  prematurely  considered  unfriendly  acts  by  a 
portion  of  my  countrymen.  They  ought  not  to  be  so  taken,  unless  applied  in 
an  unfriendly  manner;  and  I  have  no  fear  that  either  of  these  enlightened 
and  friendly  governments  wTould  encourage  the  southern  movement  by 
receiving  its  representatives  or  suffering  its  marine  prizes  to  be  sold  in  their 
ports;  and  neither  do  I  fear,  Mr.  President,  that  the  government  of  Switzer¬ 
land,  which  has  always  on  such  occasions  proved  itself  wise  and  just,  would 
ever  throw  its  weight  into  the  scale  of  insane  revolution,  and  of  negro 
slavery  disengaged  from  all  restraint,  and  of  the  African  slave  trade,  by 
receiving  any  representative  of  that  portion  of  our  States. 

In  concluding,  Mr.  President,  I  have  the  honor  to  bid  you  farewell,  and,  in 
your  person,  to  your  estimable  colleagues  and  to  your  free,  well-conducted, 
and  happy  country.  May  it  never  forget  whence  this  blessing  comes,  and 
what  hand  is  indispensable  for  its  continued  preservation  !  May  your  lakes 
and  mountains — the  admiration  of  the  world — ever  represent,  as  they  do 
now,  peace,  prosperity,  prudence  in  foreign  policy,  and,  at  home,  Christian 
liberty ! 


Mr.  Fogg's  address  to  the  President. 

Mr.  President:  The  just  and  lucid  statement  of  the  present  condition  and 
prospects  of  the  United  States  made  by  my  honored  predecessor  and  friend 
leaves  for  myself  little  more  than  the  agreeable  duty  of  reaffirming  what  lie 
has  so  well  said. 

There  are  crises  in  the  lives  of  nations  as  well  as  of  individuals.  Swit- 


320  CORRESPONDENCE. 

zerland  has  had  her  crises.  Times  almost  without  number  her  brave  moun¬ 
taineers  have  been  called  to  arms  to  put  down  sedition  at  home  and  repel 
the  invaders  from  abroad.  Thanks  to  the  God  of  liberty,  they  have  always 
triumphed,  and  the  land  of  Tell  is  still  the  home  of  the  free. 

The  United  States  has  had  her  crises.  In  her  infancy,  when  Washington 
led  her  brave  sons  to  maintain  her  right  to  be  one  of  the  nations  of  the 
earth,  then  was  her  crisis.  Her  second  great  crisis  is  now,  when  a  despotic 
institution  raises  the  standard  of  intestine  war,  and  appeals  to  foreign  gov¬ 
ernments  for  sympathy  and  aid  to  break  down  freedom  and  free  institutions 
in  America.  This  crisis,  like  yours,  shall  be  decided  for  liberty,  and  Ame¬ 
rica,  too,  shall  remain  the  land  of  the  free.  The  cloud  which  is  now  charged 
with  destruction  will  soon  be  dispersed,  and  be  followed  by  the  sunshine  of 
a  purer  and  broader  realization  of  the  rights  of  mankind, 

I  am  instructed  to  assure  your  excellency  of  the  cordial  good  wishes  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  of  his  desire  to  cultivate  and 
strengthen  those  relations  of  amity  and  sympathy  which  have  always  sub¬ 
sisted  and  ought  always  to  subsist  between  governments  whose  political 
institutions  are  so  nearly  alike 

In  conclusion,  let  me  say  to  your  excellency  and  your  associates  that  it 
will  be  my  highest  ambition  during  my  residence  in  your  country  to  so  dis¬ 
charge  all  my  duties  that,  while  jealously  guarding  the  interests  and  rights 
of  American  citizens,  I  may  deserve  the  confidence  and  enjoy  the  personal 
friendship  of  all  the  members  of  your  government.  Should  I  be  as  fortunate 
in  these  respects  as  my  predecessor  has  been,  my  highest  hopes  will  be 
gratified. 


President  KnueseVs  reply. 

The  Swiss  confederation  has  always  taken  a  lively  interest  in  everything 
concerning  the  great  sister  republic  beyond  the  Atlantic.  How  could  it  be 
otherwise  ?  The  similarity  of  the  democratic  federative  institutions,  the 
independence  and  liberty  which  both  enjoy,  and  which  they  had  to  obtain 
by  force  of  arms,  has  necessarily  led  to  a  mutual  approach,  however  great 
the  distance  be  which  separates  the  old  world  from  the  new.  In  this  may 
be  found,  perhaps,  a  principal  reason  why  for  a  long  series  of  years  numer¬ 
ous  Swiss  families  emigrated  to  the  United  States,  where  they  sought  and 
found  a  new  home,  and  why  the  names  of  Swiss  cantons  and  towns  are  now 
to  be  found  where  for  thousands  of  years  uncultivated  and  unpopulated 
forests  and  prairies  existed.  The  intercourse  between  the  two  nations  has 
since  steadily  increased ;  the  produce  of  one  country  finds  its  market  in 
the  other,  and  numerous  points  of  connexion  develop  themselves  ever  more 
and  more. 

This  harmony  of  political  principles,  sympathies,  and  interests  has  for  its 
consequence  a  steadily  increasing  approach  of  both  nations,  which  has 
already  on  different  occasions  shown  itself  by  marks  of  mutual  cordiality. 
Names  like  that  of  William  Tell,  so  dear  to  Switzerland,  were  given  to  sea 
vessels  by  citizens  of  the  United  States.  The  federal  council  responded  to 
that  salutation  by  hoisting  the  Swiss  flag  on  the  mainmast  of  those  ships. 
To  the  colossal  monument  which  the  United  States  erected  in  memory  of 
their  liberator,  the  immortal  Washington,  Switzerland  has  contributed  a 
stone  with  an  inscription.  Many  more  similar  marks  of  mutual  esteem 
might  be  enumerated  ;  suffice  it  to  add  the  remark  that  a  treaty  of  friend¬ 
ship  and  commerce,  concluded  a  few  years  ago,  has  but  strengthened  the 
relations  between  the  two  countries. 

Switzerland,  from  the  sincere  sympathy  which  she  has  for  the  welfare  of 
the  Union,  looks  with  anxiety  upon  the  issue  of  the  events  which  now  shake 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


321 


that  country.  Switzerland  passed  through  a  similar  crisis  fourteen  years 
ago,  which  threatened  to  tear  asunder  the  then  loose  connexion  of  the 
twenty-two  cantons.  But  renewed  rose  the  present  confederation  from 
that  tempest ;  strengthened  internally  and  abroad,  she  now  stands  there, 
esteemed  by  the  nations.  May  God  grant  that  the  connexion  of  the  States 
of  the  United  States  of  America  may  also  emerge  renewed  and  strengthened 
out  of  this  crisis. 

The  president  of  the  Swiss  confederation  presents  his  best  thanks,  through 
your  excellency,  to  the  President  of  the  United  States  for  his  assurances  of 
friendship  and  sympathy.  He  hopes  that  the  new  minister  resident  will 
thoroughly  acquaint  himself  with  our  relations  and  laws.  That  would  ren¬ 
der  the  more  possible  for  him  a  strict  performance  of  his  duties  ;  the  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  rights  and  interests  of  American  citizens,  and  the  preservation 
of  a  good  and  ever  friendly  understanding  with  the  Swiss  government,  which 
wishes  to  unite  loyaute  with  their  maintenance  of  authority.  The  President 
of  the  confederation  may  add  that  he  thinks  the  retiring  minister  resident 
has  learned  to  esteem  Switzerland,  her  authorities  and  nation,  and  he  may 
give  to  Mr.  Fay  the  plain  assurance  that  he  has  acquired  the  esteem  and 
the  love  of  the  country  and  her  magistrates.  The  President  of  the  confed¬ 
eration  doubts  not  a  moment  that  the  relations  between  the  federal  council 
and  the  present  representative  of  America  will  always  be  of  the  most  friendly 
character. 


Mr.  Fogg  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  1.]  United  States  Legation, 

Berne ,  July  8,  18  hi. 

Sir:  Leaving  New  York  for  my  post  of  duty  on  the  steamer  “Adriatic,” 
the  14th  day  of  May,  I  reached  Berne  via  Galway,  London,  and  Paris,  June 
21,  having  previously  ascertained  by  correspondence  with  my  predecessor 
that  it  would  be  agreeable  to  him  for  me  to  take  possession  of  the  office, 
legation  property,  &c.,  the  1st  day  of  July. 

Making  it  my  first  duty,  after  arriving,  to  call  on  Mr.  Fay  at  his  house,  I 
was  received  with  the  utmost  frankness  and  cordiality,  and  with  the  offer 
of  every  facility  to  render  my  entrance  upon  my  new  duties  pleasant  to 
myself  and  favorable  to  the  non-interruption  of  that  entente  cor  diale,  now  and 
for  years  past  so  happily  existing  between  the  American  legation  arid  the 
several  members  of  the  Swiss  government. 

Mr.  Fay  very  kindly  undertook  to  notify  the  president  of  the  confedera¬ 
tion  of  my  arrival,  and  ask  an  audience  to  enable  him  to  present  his  own 
letter  of  recall,  and  n^self  and  my  letter  of  credence  on  the  Monday  following. 
Having  received  promise  of  an  audience  on  the  day  named,  Mr.  Fay  called 
with  his  carriage,  and  we  went  together  to  the  palace  of  the  federal  council. 
The  sequel  has  been  narrated  and  transmitted  to  the  State  Department  by 
Mr.  Fay  in  his  despatch  numbered  431,  dated  July  2,  1861. 

Subsequently  we  called  upon  the  other  members  of  the  Swiss  govern¬ 
ment  and  upon  the  foreign  ambassadors  resident  at  Berne,  to  all  of  whom  I 
was  kindly  introduced,  and  by  all  of  whom  as  cordially  received — not  with¬ 
out  uniform,  and,  1  am  sure  I  may  add,  sincere  expressions  of  regret  at  the 
termination  of  Mr.  Fay’s  official  relations  with  the  government  and  the 
diplomatic  corps. 

During  our  entire  round  of  visits  and  presentations  it  was  painfully 
pleasing  to  be  constantly  reminded  of  the  profound  interest  with  which  the 

21 


322 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


contest  now  going  on  in  the  United  States,  between  liberty  and  union  on 
the  one  hand,  and  despotism  and  secession  on  the  other,  is  watched  alike  by 
the  friends  of  republicanism  and  of  absolutism.  Here,  however,  the  rebels 
have  no  friends — not  even  among  the  representatives  of  absolutism  in  Europe 
On  all  sides,  the  sanguine  assurances  I  have  felt  at  liberty  to  give  of  the 
certain  triumph  of  our  system  and  constitution  of  government  over  the  con¬ 
spirators  for  its  overthrow,  has  seemed  to  give  unalloyed  satisfaction.  That 
the  future  may  justify  these  my  assurances,  will  be  my  constant  prayer, 
with  that  of  millions  in  other  lands. 

I  should  not  do  justice  to  my  own  feelings  did  I  omit  to  say  that  I  have 
found  Mr.  Fay  a  true  Christian  gentleman,  and  an  American  whose  heart 
has,  by  absence,  lost  none  of  its  devotion  to  the  liberties  and  good  name  of 
his  native  land.  Thoroughly  sympathizing  with  the  principles  and.  pur¬ 
poses  of  the  present  administration  of  the  United  States  government,  and 
possessing  large  experience  and  an  enviable  reputation  in  Europe,  I  trust  it 
may  not  be  deemed  impertinent  in  me  to  express  the  hope  that  the  State 
Department  will  not  be  a  long  time  in  finding  some  field  where  his  familiarity 
with  international  and  diplomatic  affairs  will  be  a  necessity  to  the  govern¬ 
ment. 

With  an  ardent  desire  for  the  preservation  of  the  free  spirit  of  our  gov¬ 
ernment  and  the  integrity  of  our  national  Union,  I  have  the  honor  to  sub¬ 
scribe  myself,  with  the  highest  consideration,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  G.  FOGG. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Fogg. 

[Extract.] 

No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  29,  1861. 

Sir:  Mr.  Fay’s  despatch  of  July  2  (No.  431)  has  been  duly  received.  The  ac¬ 
count  he  has  given  us  of  his  retirement  and  your  entrance  upon  the  mission, 
as  also  the  sentiments  expressed  by  him  and  b}7  yourself  to  the  president  of 
the  republic,  and  the  reply  of  that  eminent  magistrate,  are  exceedingly  in¬ 
teresting.  The  President  of  the  United  States  appreciates  very  highly  the 
liberal  and  friendly  feelings  of  the  Swiss  republic,  and  derives  from  them  new 
motives  to  maintain  relations  so  auspiciously  established. 

vLr  V*/  vL.  ^ 

^  ^  ^ 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  G.  Fogg,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc ,  Berne. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Fogg. 

No.  8.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  6,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  1,  dated  8th  July  last,  has  been  received.  Your 
account  of  your  interview  with  Mr.  Fay,  and  of  the  circumstances  of  the 
audience  granted  37ou  by  the  government  of  the  republic  of  Switzerland,  is 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


323 


interesting1  and  entirely  satisfactory.  The  sentiments  you  expressed  on  that 
occasion  are  approved  by  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and  the  generous 
reply  made  to  you  by  the  president  of  the  federal  council  of  Switzerland,  as 
narrated  to  us  in  the  last  despatch  of  Mr.  Fay,  has  been  received  with  deep 
emotion.  We  feel  assured  that  whatever  may  be  the  changes  of  existing 
relations  between  us  and  other  countries,  Switzerland  and  the  United  States 
will  always  remain  friends. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

George  G.  Fogg,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  Berne. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Fogg. 

No.  13.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  14,  1861. 

Sir:  Among  the  important  instructions  addressed  to  your  predecessor  are 
those  concerning  the  restrictions  of  certain  of  the  Swiss  cantons  against 
citizens  of  the  United  States  professing  Judaism — a  subject  which  received  at 
Mr.  Fay’s  hands  a  large  share  of  earnest  attention,  and  upon  which  he  addressed 
the  department  repeatedly  and  at  much  length.  It  is  very  desirable  that 
his  efforts  to  procure  the  removal  of  the  restrictions  referred  to — which, 
though  not  completely  successful,  have  no  doubt  had  much  effect  in  smoothing 
the  way  to  such  a  result — should  be  followed  up  by  you.  You  will,  there¬ 
fore,  after  having  fully  acquainted  yourself  with  what  Mr.  Fay  has  done  in 
the  premises,  and  with  the  views  of  the  department,  as  expressed  to  him  in 
the  despatches  on  file  in  the  legation,  take  such  steps  as  you  may  deem 
judicious  and  likely  to  advance  the  benevolent  object  in  question. 

It  is  not  doubted  that  further  proper  appeals  to  the  justice  and  liberality 
of  the  authorities  of  the  several  cantons  whose  laws  discriminate  against 
Israelitish  citizens  of  the  United  States  will  result  in  a  removal  of  the  odious 
restrictions  and  a  recognition  of  the  just  rights  of  those  citizens. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

George  G.  Fogg,  Esq.,  fyc. ,  fyc.,  Berne 


NETHERLANDS. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 


No.  4.] 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  May  16,  1861. 


Sir:  The  government  is  preoccupied  with  the  civil  war  which  has  been 
inaugurated  with  the  reckless  purpose  of  overthrowing  the  Constitution  and 
the  federal  Union.  It  has  little  time  to  think  of  our  foreign  relations,  and 
when  it  does  think  of  them  it  is  chiefly  to  consider  how  and  in  what  way  it 
can  most  effectually  counteract  the  efforts  of  the  revolutionists  to  procure 
European  intervention  in  their  favor. 

The  Netherlands  lost  even  their  independence  for  a  time  through  the  dis¬ 
astrous  operations  of  the  French  revolution  of  1789.  They  are  slowly,  but 
surely,  recovering  advantages  and  prestige  which  they  enjoyed  before  that 
calamity  occurred.  Their  policy  is  peace  and  friendship  with  all  nations, 
and  certainly  they  have  always  manifested  the  most  liberal  sentiments 
towards  the  United  States.  In  view  of  these  circumstances  and  dispositions 
the  President  does  not  apprehend  any  danger  that  the  government  of  the 
Netherlands,  or  its  very  intelligent  people,  will  lend  aid,  countenance,  or 
sympathy  to  the  misguided  partisans  who,  in  a  frenzy  of  passion,  are  com¬ 
passing  the  ruin  of  our  country. 

I  have  looked  through  the  correspondence  of  this  department  with  your 
legation,  and  I  find  that,  although  our  commerce  is  known  in  every  part  of 
the  world,  and  although  the  Netherlands  have  no  insignificant  possessions 
in  each  of  its  great  continental  divisions,  yet  that  there  is  not  even  one  case 
of  controversy  or  dispute  between  the  two  nations. 

What,  then,  will  you  do  at  the  Hague  ?  You  can  do  much,  and,  first,  in 
relation  to  Japan.  The  government  of  the  Netherlands  is  probably  an  ally 
of  Japan.  I  enclose  the  copy  of  a  note  of  the  14th  instant,  addressed  by 
this  department  to  the  respective  diplomatic  representatives  of  Christian 
powers  here  who  have  treaties  with  Japan.  You  will  submit  the  sugges¬ 
tions  contained  therein  to  his  Majesty’s  government,  and  if  they  should  be 
frankly  received,  I  shall  be  prepared  to  submit  a  project  of  a  convention  to 
carry  them  into  effect. 

I  have  especially  called  the  attention  of  Baron  de  Limburg  here  to  this 
matter,  and  invited  him  to  consult  with  his  government.  Should  he  comply 
with  this  request,  your  own  action  will  be  merely  in  co-operation  with  him, 
and  the  needful  negotiations  may  be  had  with  him  here  if  his  government 


shall  prefer. 

The  government  of  the  Netherlands  may  perhaps  have  forgotten  that 
New  York,  one  of  the  largest  and  most  prosperous  of  these  States,  was  col¬ 
onized  by  emigrants  from  that  country,  and  that  their  descendants  still 
cherish  lively  affection  for  the  land  of  their  ancestors.  The  flow  of  emi¬ 
gration  from  the  Netherlands  to  this  country  was  arrested  by  the  revolu¬ 
tionary  wars  which  occurred  in  both  countries  at  the  close  of  the  last 


326 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


century;  but  it  has  resumed  its  course  within  the  last  twenty  years,  and  the 
thrifty  adventurers  already  constitute  an  important  portion  of  the  popula¬ 
tion  in  some  of  our  new  western  States.  The  intercourse  between  persons 
of  this  class  and  their  relations  and  friends  is  very  intimate.  All  who  come 
hither  from  the  Netherlands,  whether  as  settlers  or  transient  passengers, 
are  admitted  and  enjoy  entire  freedom  of  movement,  and  are  never  required 
to  exhibit  a  passport  under  any  circumstances.  It  is  a  fact  very  honorable 
to  themselves,  and  to  their  native  country,  that  not  one  of  them  has  ever 
manifested  a  purpose  or  even  a  thought  of  hostility  against  this  govern¬ 
ment.  I  am  sure  that  the  citizens  of  the  United  States  who  have  occasion 
to  visit  the  Netherlands  are  equally  free  from  any  sentiments  of  unkindness, 
or  of  hostility  against  the  government  or  people  of  that  country.  Why, 
then,  should  not  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  relax  the  rigor  of  its 
police  system  so  far  as  to  dispense  with  the  requirement  that  the  citizen  of 
the  United  States  shall  arm  himself  with  a  passport  when  visiting  that 
country  ?  The  President  desires  that  you  submit  these  thoughts  to  the 
minister  for  foreign  affairs  in  an  earnest,  but  not  importunate  manner.  If 
they  should  be  favorably  received,  you  will  be  authorized  to  enter  into  a 
convention  to  give  them  effect. 

One  of  our  first  treaties  was  made  with  the  Netherlands  in  the  year  H82. 
Article  XIX  of  that  treaty  was  as  follows: 

“No  subject  of  their  high  mightinesses,  the  states  general  of  the  United 
Netherlands,  shall  apply  for  or  take  any  commission  or  letters  of  marque 
for  arming  any  ship  or  ships  to  act  as  privateers  against  the  said  United 
States  of  America,  or  any  of  them,  or  the  subjects  and  inhabitants  of  the 
said  United  States,  or  any  of  them,  or  against  the  property  of  the  inhabitants 
of  any  of  them,  from  any  prince  or  State  with  which  the  United  States  of 
America  may  happen  to  be  at  war;  nor  shall  any  subject  or  inhabitant  of  the 
said  United  States  of  America,  or  any  of  them,  apply  for  or  take  any  com¬ 
mission  or  letters  of  marque  for  arming  any  ship  or  ships  to  act  as  privateers 
against  the  high  and  mighty  lords,  the  states  general  of  the  United  Nether¬ 
lands,  or  against  the  subjects  of  their  high  mightinesses,  or  any  of  them,  or 
against  the  property  of  any  one  of  them,  from  any  prince  or  State  with 
which  their  high  mightinesses  may  be  at  war.  And  if  any  person  of  either 
nation  shall  take  such  commission  or  letters  of  marque,  he  shall  be  punished 
as  a  pirate.” 

There  have  been  several  changes  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands 
since  that  time,  and  it  has  thus  become  doubtful  whether  that  treaty  is  now 
in  force. 

You  will  have  perceived  in  the  archives  of  the  legation  a  letter  which  was 
addressed  to  you  on  the  10th  instant,  on  the  subject  of  the  amendments  to 
the  law  of  nations  in  regard  to  the  laws  of  maritime  war  applicable  to 
neutrals,  which  was  proposed  by  the  congress  at  Paris  iu  1856.  It  is  pre¬ 
sumed  that  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  will  be  well  disposed  to 
enter  into  a  convention  for  the  acceptance  of  these  propositions,  the  material 
one  being  in  effect  the  same  as  the  treaty  stipulations  to  which  I  have  thus 
referred. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfullv,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c .,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


327 


Mr.  Murphy  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  52.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

The  Hague ,  April  2,  1861. 

Cl  xl/  ylf  vL*  ^  v!/  >1/ 

•  *7*  *1*  'C  'T'  'T'  'T'  'T* 

I  have  also  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  the  despatch  of  your  predecessor, 
No.  37,  of  the  28th  of  February  last,  in  relation  to  the  so-called  “Confederate 
States  of  America.”  Upon  receiving  it  I  called  upon  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  and  inquired  whether  any  person  or  agent  had  presented  himself  to 
this  government  on  behalf  of  those  States;  and,  upon  receiving  an  answer  in 
the  negative,  I  desired  him,  in  case  any  person  should  do  so,  to  inform  me 
immediately,  and  before  any  action  should  be  had  to  receive  such  representa¬ 
tive,  as  I  would  in  that  case  make  a  communication  to  him  on  the  subject. 
He  promised  me  that  he  would  do  so.  I  did  not  deem  it  necessary  to  be 
more  explicit  at  the  present  time. 

Since  my  former  despatch  there  has  been  a  resignation  of  all  the  members 
of  the  ministry,  and  a  reconstruction  of  the  cabinet.  Some  of  the  old  mem¬ 
bers  have  been  reinstated,  but  most  of  the  members  are  new  appointments. 
The  ministry  of  foreign  affairs  has  been  devolved  upon  Baron  T.  P.  P.  de  Zueglen 
de  Nyevelt — not  the  late  minister  of  the  same  name,  though  he  occupied  the 
same  post  a  number  of  years  since. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  youis  respectfully, 

HEN.  C.  MURPHY. 


Mr.  Murphy  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  53.]  The  Hague,  April  10,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  circular  despatch 
of  the  9th  of  March,  in  regard  to  the  intervention  of  foreign  powers  in  the 
domestic  affairs  of  the  United  States  at  the  present  time.  In  compliance  with 
the  instructions  contained  therein,  I  immediately  addressed  the  minister  of 
foreign  affairs  of  this  government  a  communication,  of  which  a  copy  is 
annexed  to  this  despatch.  The  King  is  at  present  on  his  annual  visit  to 
Amsterdam,  and  will  not  probably  return  under  ten  days;  and  I  presume 
nothing  will  be  done  in  the  ministry  of  an  important  character  until  he  shall 
have  returned.  No  person  has  yet  appeared  here  on  behalf  of  the  seceding 
States;  and  if  any  one  or  more  should  come  on  their  account,  I  apprehend 
nothing  will  be  done  by  the  Dutch  government  until  the  great  powers  shall 
have  acted  in  regard  to  an  acknowledgment  of  their  independence  or  a  treaty. 
You  may  rest  assured  that  the  present  difficulties  in  the  United  States  are 
regarded  by  this  government  with  regret,  and  that  it  will  do  nothing  to 
encourage  the  seceding  States  under  existing  circumstances.  I  speak,  how¬ 
ever,  on  this  subject,  as  yet,  of  course  without  any  official  intimation,  and 
merely  from  the  tone  and  temper  of  the  well-informed  circles — as  well  those 
connected  with  the  government  as  others.  There  is  in  the  Dutch  character 
a  strong  repugnance  to  political  changes,  except  when  a  strong  sense  of 
wrong  and  injury  exists.  The  government  and  people,  as  you  well  know, 
are  conservative  beyond  any  other  nation.  I  will  not  fail,  however,  to 
inform  you  of  everything  which  shall  transpire  here  on  this  subject,  and 
without  delay. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  yours  respectfully, 

HENRY  C.  MURPHY. 


Hon.  William  II.  Seward,  &c.}  &c.f  &c. 


328 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Murphy  to  the  Minister  for  Foreign  Affairs. 

The  Hague,  April  8,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  minister  resident  of  the  United  States  of  America,  has 
the  honor  to  address  his  excellency  Baron  Van  Zuylen  Van  Nijevelt,  minister 
of  foreign  affairs  of  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Netherlands,  on  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  the  present  complication  of  the  internal  political  affairs  of  the 
United  States,  and,  for  the  better  understanding  of  the  views  of  his  govern¬ 
ment  in  relation  thereto,  to  invite  the  attention  of  his  excellency  to  the  ac¬ 
companying  address  of  the  President  on  assuming  the  administration  of  the 
federal  Union.  His  excellency  will  find  therein  a  statement  of  the  alleged 
grievances,  of  the  revolutionary  nature  of  the  proceedings  of  a  number  of 
the  States  of  the  Union  which  have  attempted  to  secede  and  have  formed  a 
provisional  government  of  their  own,  and  of  the  line  of  policy  which  the 
government  of  the  Union  will  pursue  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  peace 
and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Union. 

The  undersigned  will  further  remark,  in  explanation  of  this  statement  of 
the  President  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  secession  movement,  that 
the  government  of  the  United  States  is  not  simply  a  confederation,  but  a 
union,  which  has  been  invested  by  the  people  of  the  different  States,  acting 
in  their  original  sovereign  capacity,  with  certain  powers,  which  are  exclu¬ 
sive  and  paramount  throughout  the  republic,  such  as  the  making  of  war 
and  peace,  the  regulation  of  commerce,  whether  between  the  States  them¬ 
selves  or  with  foreign  nations,  the  establishment  of  post  offices  and  post 
roads,  the  defining  and  punishing  piracies  and  felonies  on  the  high  seas,  the 
maintenance  of  a  navy,  and  the  laying  and  collecting  taxes  and  duties  for 
the  common  defence  arid  welfare,  besides  various  others  entirely  of  a  domes¬ 
tic  bearing,  but  all  operating  on  all  the  States  and  the  citizens  thereof  as 
one  people.  In  other  words,  in  all  that  concerns  the  foreign  relations  of  the 
several  States,  as  well  as  in  many  details  of  internal  regulation,  the  United 
States  are  as  much  a  consolidated  government  as  the  kingdom  of  the  Neth¬ 
erlands,  with  its  provincial  divisions  and  assemblies — the  only  difference 
being,  that  in  the  United  States  all  powers  not  granted  to  the  federal  gov¬ 
ernment  are  reserved  to  the  States  and  the  people,  and,  consequently, 
original  and  more  extensive  powers  are  exercised  by  the  legislatures  of  the 
several  States.  Any  attempt,  therefore,  on  the  part  of  any  State  or  number 
of  States,  or  of  any  section  of  a  State,  to  interfere  with  the  exercise  of  the 
powers  conferred  on  the  general  government  by  the  Constitution  is  revolu¬ 
tionary;  and  any  pretended  or  actual  exercise  of  like  powers  by  them  is  an 
usurpation. 

The  condition  of  affairs  now  existing  in  the  United  States  is  altogether  of 
an  anomalous  character,  arising  from  the  principles  upon  which  the  govern¬ 
ment  is  founded.  Those  principles  acknowledge  the  right  of  self-govern¬ 
ment  in  the  people,  and  the  exercise  of  perfect  freedom  of  speech,  of  assem¬ 
blage,  and  of  the  press.  A  majority  of  the  electors,  in  the  manner  and 
under  the  forms  prescribed  by  the  Constitution,  elect  the  President,  and  thus 
give  administrative  vitality  to  the  government.  In  the  canvass  preceding 
the  election,  which  takes  place  every  four  years,  discussions  of  subjects  of 
vital  interest  to  the  country  are  carried  on  in  the  press  and  on  the  stump 
with  such  effect  that,  although  the  voting  body  comprises  over  three  mil¬ 
lions  of  persons,  probably  not  five  per  cent,  of  the  whole  number  fail  to  vote 
on  such  occasions.  Popular  passion  is  aroused,  every  motive  is  appealed 
to  by  the  rival  parties,  and,  when  a  conclusion  is  reached,  there  is  often¬ 
times  a  feeling  of  disappointment  on  the  part  of  the  minority.  But  this 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


329 


feeling  has  never  heretofore  interfered  with  their  loyal  submission  to  the 
will  of  the  majority.  In  the  recent  canvass,  the  questions  connected  with 
the  institution  of  slavery  were  almost  exclusively  agitated,  principally  in 
regard  to  its  extension  into  the  Territories,  or,  as  it  might  be  termed  in  this 
country,  the  lands  of  the  generality.  The  decision  of  the  people  has  been 
adverse  to  such  extension,  but  altogether  by  the  votes  of  the  non-slavehold¬ 
ing  States.  Advantage  has  been  taken  of  this  circumstance  by  designing 
men  to  make  the  minority,  or  rather  that  portion  of  it  residing  in  the  slave¬ 
holding  States,  believe  that  their  constitutional  rights,  in  regard  to  that 
species  of  property  known  as  slaves,  were  in  danger  of  being  destroyed  by 
the  majority.  The  fear  of  such  a  consequence  is  groundless;  but,  acting 
upon  such  apprehensions,  the  people  of  the  seceding  States  have  precipi¬ 
tated  themselves  into  their  present  position. 

No  complaint  has  been  made  in  any  quarter  of  any  improper  act  of  the 
general  government,  or  of  any  violation  by  it  of  its  powers,  or  of  the  rights 
of  slaveholders,  as  a  ground  for  the  existing  discontent.  The  evils  are  an¬ 
ticipatory  only,  so  far  as  the  action  of  the  general  government  is  concerned. 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  true  that,  notwithstanding  the  apprehensions  and 
fears  which  have  been  excited  in  the  bosoms  of  a  portion  of  the  American 
people  in  regard  to  the  policy  of  the  government,  and  the  steps  which  have 
been  taken  by  them  for  the  formation  of  an  independent  government,  it  is 
not  to  be  doubted  that  the  great  majority  of  the  people  of  those  seceding 
States  still  cherish  a  love  for  the  Union  of  their  fathers,  its  memories,  its 
prestige,  and  its  blessings.  Independent  of  this  fact,  the  permanent  dismem¬ 
berment  of  the  Union  is  fraught  with  so  much  evil  to  them,  as  well  as  to  the 
country  at  large,  as  to  justify  the  belief  that  a  calm  view  of  the  consequences, 
combined  with  their  patriotism,  will  cause  them  to  retrace  their  steps  A 
separate  government  on  their  part  entails  the  necessity  not  only  of  an  entire 
new  corps  of  officers  of  government,  but  also  of  a  standing  army  where  none 
now  is  necessary,  of  an  independent  navy,  of  a  cordon  of  revenue  officers 
along  an  extensive  coast  and  frontier  line;  all  attended  with  heavy  expense 
and  increased  taxes.  These  consequences,  and  the  severance  of  family  ties 
and  brotherhood  existing  between  individuals  residing  in  different  States, 
are  to  come  home  to  them  when  passion  and  delusion  shall  have  passed 
away;  and  when  they  shall  discover,  as  discover  they  will,  that  the  general 
government  entertains  no  designs  against  their  peace  or  property,  but  on 
the  other  hand  will,  as  it  is  bound  to  do,  defend  both. 

The  undersigned  would  also  impress  upom  the  government  of  his  Majesty 
the  fact  that  no  one  questions  the  election  of  the  President  according  to  the 
provisions  of  the  Constitution.  He  is  the  choice  of  the  country,  and  is  fairly 
entitled  to  the  exercise  of  all  the  powers  conferred  upon  the  executive  head 
of  the  federal  government  by  the  Constitution.  Every  citizen  within  every 
State  is  bound  to  obedience  to  his  lawful  authority.  It  is  the  sworn  duty 
of  the  President  to  administer  faithfully  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the 
United  States,  and  the  obligation  of  every  citizen  and  individual  is  perfect 
to  uphold  and  sustain  him  in  its  performance.  Put  the  President  will  seek 
by  a  just  and  liberal  administration,  and  by  a  paternal  regard  for  the  lights 
and  feelings  of  all  sections  of  the  country,  to  give  occasion  and  opportunity 
for  the  deliberate  and  loyal  action  of  the  people.  It  is  under  these  circum¬ 
stances  that  the  President  entertains  the  fullest  confidence  in  the  restoration 
of  the  harmony  and  unity  of  the  government  at  no  very  distant  day. 

The  friendship  and  good  will  which  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands  has  always  manifested  towards  the  United  States,  the  President  re¬ 
gards  as  an  assurance  that  his  Majesty’s  government  will  not  yield  to 
solicitations  to  intervene  in  any  unfriendly  way  in  the  domestic  affairs  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  evident  that  any  encouragement  to  disaffection 


330 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


from  abroad  would  thwart  the  efforts  of  the  President  for  a  reconciliation 
and  defeat  his  just  expectations  in  that  regard.  It  is  a  question,  moreover, 
which  involves  important  interests  to  all  nations  with  which  the  United 
States  are  in  commercial  relation,  and  to  all  constitutional  governments. 
The  form  of  government  which  the  people  of  the  United  States  have  adopted 
is  one  which  experience  has  proven  is  best  adapted  for  the  peace  and  pro¬ 
tection  of  the  States,  for  the  welfare  of  the  people,  and  for  the  development 
of  the  enterprise  and  resources  of  its  vast  territory.  Nor  has  its  influence, 
it  is  believed,  been  without  its  salutary  effect  upon  the  fatherlands,  whence 
that  population  has  originally  sprung. 

It  has,  however,  been  a  government  of  example  only  as  to  other  nations, 
and  has  steadily  pursued  the  policy  of  not  interfering  with  their  internal 
affairs.  Under  it  close  commercial  relations  have  sprung  up,  particularly 
with  all  the  western  powers  of  Europe,  and  with  the  kingdom  of  the  Neth¬ 
erlands  have  never  for  a  moment — now  more  than  three-fourths  of  a  cen¬ 
tury — been  interrupted.  If  at  present  there  happen  some  inconveniences  to 
the  trading  interests  of  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty,  it  will  be  the  endeavor 
of  the  President  to  render  them  as  light  and  transient  as  possible;  and 
should  any  injury  be  sustained  therefrom  by  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty, 
the  President  is  determined,  the  undersigned  is  instructed  to  say,  that  they 
shall,  so  far  as  it  may  rest  with  him,  be  amply  indemnified.  Should  a  state 
of  civil  war  be  precipitated,  by  any  cause  whatever,  those  inconveniences 
■would  be  turned  into  evils  of  a  wide-spread  and  disastrous  character  to 
other  nations.  Not  only  would  the  channels  of  commerce  be  closed,  or,  at 
least,  seriously  interrupted,  and  the  agricultural  and  mining  products  of  the 
United  States,  many  of  which  have  become  necessary  for  other  nations,  be 
withheld;  but  the  political  systems  of  Europe  and  the  cause  of  well  regu¬ 
lated  and  constitutional  government  would  suffer  everywhere.  A  state  of 
anarchy  must  ensue  if  the  revolution  be  pursued.  It  is  not  to  be  expected 
that  an  empire  of  thirty-one  millions  of  souls  can  be  broken  up,  and  the 
glories  and  blessings  of  its  free  government  be  thrown  away  at  the  behest 
of  six  millions,  one-half  of  whom  only  are  of  the  white  race.  The  policy 
hitherto  has  been,  on  the  part  of  the  general  government,  and  will  continue 
to  be,  to  avert  such  a  calamity;  and  in  asking  the  non-intervention  of 
friendly  nations,  while  it  pursues  a  course  of  peace  itself,  it  demands,  it  is 
confidently  believed,  what  is  most  consistent  with  the  cause  of  humanity 
and  good  government  everywhere.  And  to  no  power  is  this  caution  ad¬ 
dressed  with  more  confidence  than  to  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands. 

The  undersigned  embraces  this  occasion  to  renew  to  his  excellency  Baron 
Van  Zuylen  Van  Nijevelt  the  assurance  of  his  high  consideration. 

HENRY  C.  MURPHY. 


Mr.  Murphy  to  Mr.  Seicard. 

No.  55.]  The  Hague,  April  30,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you  hereunto  annexed  a  copy  of  the 
reply  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  my  note  addressed  to  him  on  the 
8th  instant,  of  which  a  copy  was  transmitted  to  you  with  my  despatch,  No. 
53,  of  the  10th  instant.  After  reciting  very  particularly  the  contents  of 
that  note,  and  expressing  the  regrets  of  his  Majesty  at  the  posture  of  our 
affairs  and  his  hope  that  the  difficulties  will  be  surmounted,  the  minister 
concludes  in  these  words: 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


331 


“The  undersigned,  in  acquitting  himself  of  the  orders  of  the  King,  has  the 
honor  to  bring  at  the  same  time  to  the  knowledge  of  Mr.  Murphy  that, 
already  in  the  month  of  December  last,  the  envoy  of  the  King  at  Washing¬ 
ton  had  recommended  to  the  Dutch  consuls  in  the  United  States  to  abstain 
from  all  intervention  in  the  political  affairs  of  the  country  within  their  juris¬ 
diction,  and  that  this  requirement  has  been  approved  by  the  government  of 
the  Netherlands.” 

If  the  note  required  an  answer  at  this  time,  it  certainly  should  have  re¬ 
ceived  something  more  to  the  point  than  this  paragraph.  I  apprehend,  how¬ 
ever,  that  this  government  will  say  nothing  in  regard  to  the  recognition  of 
the  independence  of  the  seceding  States  until  the  great  powers  of  Europe 
have  taken  their  ground,  and  that  it  will  follow  them  if  they  be  in  accord. 

I  have  also  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatch  No  39, 
with  the  gold  medal  for  Captain  Van  Albuy,  of  the  Dutch  bark  Hendrica. 
I  have,  in  accordance  with  your  direction,  transmitted  the  medal  to  the  min¬ 
ister  of  foreign  affairs,  with  a  request  that  it  be  presented  to  Captain  Van 
Albu}7  in  the  name  of  the  President. 

I  am,  sir,  yours  respectfully, 

HENRY  C.  MURPHY. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


M.  Zuylen  de  Nijevelt  to  Mr.  Murphy. 

[Translation.] 


The  Hague,  April  26,  1861. 

The  undersigned,  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  has  had  the  honor  to  receive 
the  note  which  Mr.  Murphy,  minister  resident  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
has  pleased  to  address  to  him  on  the  subject  of  the  existing  complications 
of  political  affairs  in  the  United  States;  the  said  note  being  accompanied, 
for  the  better  understanding  of  the  views  of  his  government,  by  the  address 
delivered  by  his  excellency  the  President  on  assuming  the  administration  of 
the  federal  Union. 

In  calling,  by  his  note,  the  attention  of  the  undersigned  to  the  exposition 
contained  in  the  address  of  the  wrongs  alleged  by  some  States  of  the  Union, 
of  their  proceedings  to  attempt  a  separation,  and  the  formation  of  a  sepa¬ 
rated  provisional  government,  as  well  as  on  the  line  of  conduct  which  the 
federal  government  proposes  to  follow  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  peace 
and  upholding  the  Union,  Mr.  Murphy  further  remarks,  in  explaining  this 
part  of  the  President’s  address,  upon  the  character  of  the  secessional  move¬ 
ment,  that  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  not  merely  a  confederation 
but  a  Union,  invested  by  the  people  of  the  different  States  with  powers,  ex¬ 
clusive  and  controllng  throughout  the  republic — powers  which,  embracing 
the  foreign  relations  and  numerous  details  of  domestic  interest,  operate  over 
all  the  States  and  over  their  citizens  collectively,  so  that,  adds  the  note,  any 
attempt  of  any  State,  of  a  number  of  States,  or  of  any  part  of  a  State,  to 
interrupt  the  exercise  of  the  powers  confided  to  the  general  government  is 
revolutionary  ;  and  any  exercise,  pretended  or  real  on  their  part,  of  like 
powers,  is  usurpation. 

After  having  enunciated  these  principles  as  the  basis  of  the  general  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  pointed  out  the  mode  established  for  the  election  of  President, 
the  minister  resident  enters  into  some  details  about  the  recent  election  of 
the  actual  President;  the  result  is,  that  on  former  elections  the  will  ol  the 


332 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


majority  lias  been  loyally  submitted  to,  but  that  this  example  has  not  been 
followed  by  the  minority  in  respect  to  Mr.  Lincoln,  whose  election,  further¬ 
more,  is  in  nowise  contested  in  regard  of  its  constitutional  validity.  This 
fact  the  said  note  attributes  to  apprehensions  entertained  in  the  slave  States 
that  a  blow  might  be  aimed  at  this  portion  of  their  property — apprehensions 
which  nothing  in  the  intentions  of  the  general  government  justify,  but  which 
have  prepared  the  way  upon  which  those  States  have  rushed. 

Nevertheless  and  despite  the  fears  excited  among  a  noticeable  portion  of 
the  American  people,  notwithstanding  the  attempt  made  to  form  an  inde¬ 
pendent  government,  the  government  of  the  United  States  is  persuaded,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  note,  that  the  great  majority  of  the  people  in  the  separatist 
States  will  constantly  preserve  its  regard  for  the  Union  of  their  fathers, 
their  memory,  their  influence,  and  their  greatness.  But,  independently  of 
this  fact,  the  mischiefs  and  disadvantages  which  a  permanent  dismemberment 
of  the  Union  would  draw,  as  well  upon  the  separating  States  as  upon  the 
country  generally,  justifies  the  expectation  that  upon  a  calm  review  of  the 
circumstances  they  will  come  back  upon  a  better  track. 

The  President,  flattering  himself  that  he  will  see  the  harmony  and  unity 
of  the  government  soon  established,  and  relying  on  the  friendship  and  good 
understanding  existing  between  the  two  countries,  expresses  through  the 
channel  of  Mr.  Murphy  his  confidence  that  his  Majesty  the  King  of  the 
Netherlands  will  not  lend  himself  to  applications  for  interference  in  the  do¬ 
mestic  affairs  of  the  United  States,  unless  in  an  amicable  and  conciliatory 
sense,  nor  to  any  encouragement  whatever  of  the  disaffected,  which  would 
only  counteract  the  efforts  of  the  President  to  bring  about  a  reconciliation. 

Finally,  Mr.  Murphy  wishes  to  give  assurance  that  the  President  will 
strongly  endeavor  to  lessen  as  much  as  possible  the  inconveniences  which 
must  result  to  commerce  from  the  actual  condition  of  things,  and  that  he 
proposes  to  indemnify  the  injury  which  the  subjects  of  his  Majesty  may  suf¬ 
fer  as  far  as  may  depend  upon  him. 

The  undersigned  having  placed  the  above-mentioned  note  before  the  King, 
his  Majesty  was  particularly  grieved  by  its  contents.  lie  has  charged  me 
to  signify  this  to  the  minister  resident,  adding  that  if  he  deeply  deplores 
the  situation  in  which  the  United  States  are  for  the  moment  placed,  never¬ 
theless  he  has  been  happy  to  witness  the  confidence  which  the  government 
expresses  of  being  able  to  surmount  existing  difficulties;  that  he  entertains 
the  most  sincere  wishes  for  the  success  of  the  efforts  which  will  be  made  for 
the  purpose  of  saving  and  preserving  not  only  the  interests  of  the  States  of 
the  Union,  but  also  the  interests  of  the  political  and  commercial  world  in 
general. 

The  undersigned,  in  acquitting  himself  of  these  orders  by  these  presents, 
has  the  honor  at  the  same  time  to  bring  to  Mr  Murphy’s  knowledge  that,  so 
long  ago  as  the  month  of  December,  the  King’s  envoy  at  Washington  di¬ 
rected  the  consuls  of  the  Netherlands  in  the  United  States  to  abstain  from 
an}T  interference  whatever  in  political  affairs  in  the  districts  of  the  consular 
offices,  and  that  this  prescription  was  approved  afterwards  by  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Netherlands. 

The  undersigned  seizes  this  occasion  to  reiterate  to  Mr.  Murphy  the  assu¬ 
rances  of  his  high  consideration. 


BE  ZUYLEN  DE  NIJEVELT. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


333 


Mr.  Murphy  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  56.]  The  Hague,  May  27,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  no  communication  has  as  yet 
been  made  to  this  government  on  behalf  of  the  seceding  States;  nor,  as  far 
as  I  can  learn,  has  any  attempt  been  made  by  private  persons  to  fit  out 
vessels  to  attack  our  commerce.  I  have  received  a  letter  from  an  officer  of 
the  Dutch  cavalry,  tendering  his  services  to  the  United  States,  but  I  have 
declined  to  forward  the  same  to  my  government,  assuring  him  that  the  people 
of  the  United  States  would  dispose  of  the  question  themselves.  On  the 
other  hand,  it  is  not  to  be  disguised  that  public  sentiment  here  is  much  more 
favorable  to  the  seceding  States  than  it  has  been.  The  message  of  Mr. 
Davis,  recently  delivered  to  the  congress  of  those  States,  has  been  exten¬ 
sively  published  here,  in  substance,  not  at  full  length,  and  has  had  much 
influence  on  the  question  from  the  specious  ground  of  the  Union  being  a 
mere  confederation  of  independent  States.  Besides,  Holland,  or  the  Nether¬ 
lands,  has  had  a  bitter  lesson  of  experience  under  similar  circumstances. 
The  rebellion  of  Belgium,  in  1830,  was  resisted  with  all  the  power  of  this 
government,  which  would  probably  have  succeeded  in  crushing  it  if  England 
and  France  had  not  interfered,  and  the  immense  public  debt  with  which 
this  country  is  oppressed  was  then  mostly  incurred,  while  Belgium  was, 
notwithstanding,  lost.  Reasoning  from  this  point  of  view,  there  are  not  a 
few  who  regard  the  present  position  of  the  United  States  an  expensive  and 
useless  effort.  I  state  these  circumstances  for  your  information. 

The  affairs  of  this  country  are  in  a  prosperous  condition.  The  great 
calamities  by  inundation  both  here  at  home  and  also  in  Java  have  shown 
that  there  is  abundant  resources  to  meet  such  misfortunes.  They  have 
called  forth  and  received  liberal  contributions  from  private  persons,  without 
requiring  any  aid  from  the  government.  Political  matters  are  quiet.  The 
first  chamber  of  the  states  general  is  now  in  session,  and  is  engaged  in 
considering  the  bills  adopted  by  the  other  body,  the  most  important  of  which 
are  those  relating  to  the  budget  and  the  reorganization  of  the  judiciary. 

I  have  the  honor,  sir,  to  be  yours  respectfully, 

HEN.  C.  MURPHY. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Sc.,  Sc.,  Sc. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extracts.] 

No.  1.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

The  Hague,  June  8,  1861. 

Sir:  I  hasten  to  inform  you  that  his  Majesty  the  King  of  Holland  received 
me  to-day  in  private  audience,  agreeably  to  the  prescribed  ceremonial,  and 
that  I  delivered  to  him  in  person  my  credentials  as  minister  resident  ol  the 
United  States  at  this  court. 

I  arrived  here  on  the  first  day  of  the  present  month  and  have  waited  till 
now  for  my  audience.  In  my  interview  with  his  Majesty  I  took  occasion  to 
express  the  earnest  desire  of  the  President  to  maintain  and  cultivate  those 
friendly  relations  that  have  so  long  and  so  happily  subsisted  between  the 
United  States  and  Holland,  and  especially  with  his  Majesty’s  government. 


334 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  further  observed  that  it  would  be  my  cherished  aim,  as  it  would  be  my 
most  pleasing  duty,  in  the  discharge  of  my  official  duties,  to  foster  and 
promote  the  good  understanding  now  existing  between  the  two  countries. 
The  King  received  me  graciously,  and  promptly  came  forward  to  receive 
my  credentials,  and  at  once  entered  upon  some  friendly  inquiries  as  to 
whether  I  had  been  in  the  country  before  or  had  been  elsewhere  in  the 
diplomatic  service.  I  replied  that  our  American  diplomatists  generally 
were  not  educated  after  the  European  method,  and  that  we  labored  under 
some  disadvantage  in  consequence.  His  Majesty  remarked  that  he  had  had 
the  pleasure  to  meet  Mr.  Buchanan  in  Holland  after  he  had  served  in  Russia 
and  in  England.  After  some  further  brief  conversation,  in  which  the  King 
expressed  his  pleasure  at  making  my  acquaintance,  the  audience  terminated. 

I  found,  on  my  arrival  here,  your  despatch,  No.  2,  of  the  date  of  the  10th 
of  May,  covering  a  circular  of  the  6th  of  that  month,  in  relation  to  agents 
of  insurrectionary  assemblages  sent  to  Europe  on  errands  hostile  to  the 
peace  of  the  United  States;  also  a  copy  of  a  despatch  of  the  24th  of  April, 
addressed  to  the  several  ministers  of  the  United  States  accredited  to  the 
maritime  powers  whose  plenipotentiaries  composed  the  congress  at  Paris 
the  16th  of  April,  1856,  calling  their  attention  to  the  importance  of  endeavor¬ 
ing  to  negotiate  with  those  powers  conventions  upon  the  subject  of  the 
rights  of  belligerents  and  neutrals  in  time  of  war;  also  the  draft  of  a 
convention  in  reference  to  the  subject  therein  discussed,  with  a  full  power 
and  instructions  to  execute  the  same  with  the  government  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands.  I  shall  lose  no  time  in  communicating  with  the  Dutch  government 
upon  the  subject.  Meantime  I  will  observe  that  in  an  informal  conversation 
with  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  since  my  arrival,  I  learned  from  him  that 
Holland  was  the  first  power,  not  present  at  the  convention  referred  to,  to 
acquiesce  in  the  propositions  there  laid  down. 

4;  4^  jl; 

I  cannot  learn  that  any  agent  or  agents  of  the  seceding  States  have  ap¬ 
peared  in  Holland  for  any  purpose  connected  with  their  revolutionary  or 
warlike  plans,  and  from  what  I  see  and  hear  1  conclude  that  no  countenance 
would  be  given  to  them  if  they  should. 

The  death  of  Count  Cavour,  the  news  of  which  reached  here  the  morning 
of  his  decease,  has  created  a  profound  sensation  in  diplomatic  circles  and  is 
deeply  deplored  by  the  friends  of  Italy  as  an  irreparable  loss  to  that  country. 

I  beg  to  add  that  I  have  found  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Murphy,  unceasing  in 
his  endeavors  to  facilitate  my  labors  here,  and  it  gives  me  unfeigned  pleas¬ 
ure  to  bear  this  testimony  in  his  behalf,  and  to  the  highly  honorable  position 
which  I  believe  him  to  hold  among  his  colleagues. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  2.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

The  Hague ,  June  12,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  taken  the  earliest  opportunity  to  have  an  interview  with  the 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  upon  the  condition  of  the  internal  concerns  of  the 
United  States,  and  also  upon  the  subject  matter  of  your  despatch  No.  2,  to 
which  I  referred  in  my  last. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


335 


I  assured  him  of  the  determined  purpose  of  the  United  States  govern¬ 
ment  to  put  down  the  rebellion  of  the  seceding  States  at  all  hazards,  and 
stated  its  determination  to  adopt  whatever  measures  are  necessary  to  accom¬ 
plish  that  object.  I  explained  to  him  the  character  of  the  rebellion,  and 
showed  it  to  be  merely  a  war  in  behalf  of  African  slavery,  and  that  if  we 
had  no  slavery  we  should  have  no  war  and  no  rebellion.  I  further  explained 
that  the  government  possessed  extraordinary  means  of  ending  the  rebellion 
whenever  it  chose  to  employ  them.  The  union  of  the  States  could  be  re¬ 
stored  whenever  the  government  saw  fit  to  render  the  institutions  of  the 
several  States  homogeneous.  For  when  they  were  once  made  free  States 
there  would  be  no  wish  to  separate  and  no  tendency  to  separation.  But  I 
observed  that  the  government  was  desirous  to  adopt  only  moderate  meas¬ 
ures,  and  hoped  that  such  measures  would  be  sufficient  to  cause  the  leaders 
of  the  rebellion  to  succumb  and  to  restore  peace.  But  to  accomplish  the 
high  object  of  maintaining  the  government  and  preserving  the  territory  of 
the  country  from  dismemberment,  it  was  ready  to  make  an}'  sacrifice  of 
mere  material  interests  that  necessity  demanded.  I  showed  that  the  gov¬ 
ernment  had  abundant  resources,  and  more  men  offering  for  the  military 
service  than  it  could  employ. 

The  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  in  reply  to  my  inquiries,  informed  me  that 
no  agent  or  agents  of  the  seceding  States  had  appeared  here,  though  he  had 
heard  they  were  in  London.  He  said  they  would  receive  no  countenance  if 
they  were  to  come.  He  observed  that  the  Dutch  government  had  considered 
the  question  of  the  proposed  letters  of  marque  to  be  issued  by  the  seceding 
States,  and  were  upon  the  point  of  issuing  a  proclamation  and  orders  for¬ 
bidding  the  use  of  their  ports  by  privateers,  a  copy  of  which  he  said  he 
would  furnish  me  as  soon  as  issued. 

He  expressed  the  opinion  that  the  powers  of  Europe  were  unanimously  in 
favor  of  the  Paris  declaration  abolishing  privateering,  and  said  if  the  United 
States  would  concur  in  it,  that  privateers  would  have  to  be  regarded  as 
“  sea-robbers.”  He  believed  there  would  be  no  opposition  to  negotiating 
treaties,  based  on  the  propositions  of  the  Paris  conference,  with  all  the 
Euiopean  powers  which  had  agreed  to  them,  of  which  Holland  was  one. 

The  minister  seemed  to  be  aware  of  the  causeless  character  of  the  rebel¬ 
lion  in  the  seceding  States,  and  of  the  ability  of  the  government  to  deal 
with  it,  concurring  in  the  opinion  that  we  had  more  men  than  were  needed. 

He  informed  me  that  his  government  had  ordered  four  ships-of-war  to  be 
in  readiness  to  sail  for  America  to  look  after  its  commercial  interests  there, 
and  that  the  first  ship  would  be  despatched  on  the  15th  instant,  and  that 
the  others  would  speedily  follow.  I  subsequently  learned  from  the  minister 
of  marine  that  the  fleet  would  consist  of  two  frigates  and  two  brigs-of-war, 
and  that  after  the  flag-ship  had  communicated  with  the  Dutch  minister  at 
Washington,  the  fleet  would  rendezvous  at  Curayoa,  and  spend  the  winter 
in  the  West  India  seas. 

I  forebore  to  press  the  question  of  the  immediate  negotiation  of  a  treaty 
in  reference  to  privateering.  Having  satisfied  myself  of  the  lavorable  dis¬ 
position  of  the  government  in  respect  to  the  question,  and  having  learned 
its  intention  to  issue  the  proclamation  and  orders  referred  to,  and  intimated 
with  sufficient  distinctness  the  ground  the  United  States  government  was  now 
disposed  to  occupy  on  that  subject,  I  thought  it  prudent  to  await  further 
developments  of  the  question  by  our  ministers  at  the  courts  of  France  and 
England,  whose  example  Holland  would  be  sure  to  wait  for.  1  did  not  deem 


336 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


it  advisable  to  ask  the  government  here  to  take  a  lead  to  which  I  was  aware 
it  would  be  adverse.  I  shall  be  on  the  alert  to  seize  the  proper  moment  to 
recur  to  this  subject. 

*  *  *  *  *  * 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  3.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

The  Hague,  June  14,  1861. 

Sir:  I  received  yesterday  your  circular  of  the  20th  of  May,  relating  to 
the  purchase  of  articles  in  Europe,  contraband  of  war,  for  the  use  of  persons 
in  insurrection  against  the  United  States  government. 

sfc 

5jc  5}c 

The  extraordinary  unanimity  and  energy  displayed  by  the  government 
and  loyal  people  of  the  United  States  in  their  measures  to  suppress  the 
rebellion  of  the  seceding  States  excites  constant  comment  and  high  admira¬ 
tion  in  all  quarters  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic.  The  echoes  of  the  first 
utterances  of  the  British  trading  public,  in  favor  of  permitting  the  peace¬ 
able  secession  of  the  revolting  States,  have  quite  died  away,  and,  instead, 
is  now  heard  denunciation  of  the  folly  and  madness  of  the  secessionists, 
along  with  the  expression  of  a  general  judgment  that  they  will  inevitably 
be  forced  to  succumb.  The  growth  of  this  sentiment,  fostered  by  the  char¬ 
acter  of  the  almost  daily  news  from  America,  is  strengthening  the  cause  of 
the  government  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  and  correspondingly  weakening 
the  cause  of  the  secessionists.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  whole  weight  of 
European  opinion,  which  naturally  desires  a  speedy  end  to  the  war,  will 
soon  be  thrown  in  great  force  against  the  revolting  States,  and  thus  furnish 
important  moral  aid  in  putting  an  end  to  the  struggle.  I  am  satisfied,  from 
what  has  come  under  my  personal  observation,  that  the  high  tone  adopted 
by  the  United  States  government  in  regard  to  foreign  interference  in  behalf 
of  the  secessionists  has  had  a  most  salutary  influence  upon  the  action  of  Euro¬ 
pean  governments,  great  and  small.  Many  of  them  have  no  objection  to 
seeing  the  United  States  in  difficulty;  but  they  entertain  a  healthy  appre¬ 
hension  that  our  government  may  find  a  speedy  way  out  of  it,  and  retain  a 
lively  recollection  of  those  who  would  take  advantage  of  its  temporary  em¬ 
barrassments. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  high  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward. 

Secretary  of  State. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


337 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  June  14,  1861. 

Sir:  Mr.  Murphy’s  despatch  of  the  10th  of  April,  (No.  53,)  informing*  us 
that  he  had  submitted  our  circular  letter,  with  an  appropriate  communica¬ 
tion  of  his  own,  to  the  Baron  Zuylen,  his  Majesty’s  minister  for  foreign 
affairs,  was  duly  received;  and  we  have  also  received  Mr.  Murphy’s  despatch, 
No.  55,  with  which  was  transmitted  a  copy  of  the  reply  of  the  government 
of  the  Netherlands  to  the  papers  thus  submitted  to  them. 

Mr.  Murphy  executed  the  duty  committed  to  him  in  a  very  proper  manner, 
and  you  are  instructed  to  express  to  his  Majesty’s  government  the  Presi¬ 
dent’s  high  appreciation  of  the  just  and  friendly  sentiments  which  that  gov¬ 
ernment  has  manifested  and  expressed  in  regard  to  the  domestic  disturbance 
in  our  country,  which,  happily,  now  daily  loses  something  of  the  formidable 
character  which  it  at  first  assumed. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract  ] 


No.  4.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Ihe  Hague,  June  16,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  obtained  from  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  copies  of  the 
proclamations  about  to  be  issued  by  this  government  in  relation  to  the  letters 
of  marque  recently  issued  by  the  Montgomery  revolutionists. 

I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  the  copies  transmitted  to  me  in  the  original 
Dutch.  I  see  the  instructions  to  ministers  forbid  the  application  of  the  con¬ 
tingent  fund  to  pay  translators,  and  1  infer  from  this  that  the  department 
prefers  original  documents.  These  papers  warn  the  Dutch  people  against 
privateering,  as  an  unlawful  proceeding  which  may  be  deemed  piracy,  and 
they  forbid  the  use  of  the  ports  of  the  Netherlands  to  privateers  under  any 
flag.  They  refer  also  to  the  fact  of  the  adhesion  of  Holland  to  the  declara¬ 
tion  of  the  congress  of  Paris,  in  respect  to  maritime  rights,  made  in  1856. 
It  will  likewise  be  observed  that  the  Dutch  government  abstains  from  fol¬ 
lowing  the  British  example  in  excluding  prizes  brought  in  by  ships-of-war. 
****** 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE 


Hon.  Wm.  II.  Seward. 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


[Translation.] 

In  obedience  to  the  King’s  orders  the  ministers  for  foreign  affairs,  of 
justice,  and  of  the  marine,  present  to  the  knowledge  of  all  it  may  con¬ 
cern,  that  to  guard  against  probable  difficulties  during  the  doubtful  com¬ 
plications  in  the  United  States  of  North  America,  no  privateers  under  any 

22 


338 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


flag  soever,  or  provided  with  any  commission  or  letters  of  marque,  or  their 
prizes,  shall  be  admitted  into  our  havens  or  seaports,  unless  in  case  of  marine 
disaster,  and  that  requisite  orders  be  issued  that  under  any  circumstances 
such  privateers  and  their  prizes  be  required  to  go  again  to  sea  as  speedily 
as  possible. 


The  ministers  above  named. 


At  the  Hague. 


[Translation.] 

The  minister  fjr  foreign  affairs  and  the  minister  of  justice,  by  the  King’s 
authority,  warn,  by  these  presents,  all  inhabitants  of  the  kingdom,  that 
during  the  existing  disturbances  in  the  United  States  of  America  they  in 
nowise  take  part  in  privateering,  because  the  Netherlands  government  has 
acceded  to  the  declaration  upon  maritime  rights  set  forth  by  the  Paris  con¬ 
ference  of  1856,  whereby,  among  other  matters,  privateering  is  abolished, 
and  no  recognition  of  commissions  got  for  letters  of  marque  permitted. 
Also  that  commissions  and  letters  of  marque,  in  conflict  with  the  aforesaid 
prohibition,  which  may  issue  to  inhabitants  of  the  Netherlands,  cannot  have 
a  lawful  effect  in  behalf  of  the  King’s  subjects,  or  of  any  abroad  who  are  in 
subjection  to  the  laws  of  the  kingdom.  Those  who,  under  such  circumstances, 
engage  in  or  lend  their  aid  in  privateering  to  other  people,  will  be  considered 
as  pirates,  and  prosecuted  according  to  law  in  the  Netherlands,  and  subjected 
to  the  punishment  provided  for  the  commission  of  such  offences. 

The  Hague. 

The  ministers  above  named. 


[Translation.] 

The  minister  for  foreign  affairs,  apprised  by  a  communication  from  the 
minister  of  marine,  that  the  King  has  authorized  the  naval  force  in  the  West 
Indies  to  be  seasonably  strengthened  by  his  Majesty’s  steam  frigate  Zealand, 
and  the  screw  propellers  Dyambi  and  Vesuvius,  for  the  purpose  of  giving 
protection  to  the  trade  and  navigation  of  the  Netherlands  during  the  contest 
which  seems  to  be  in  existence  in  the  United  States  of  North  America, 
wherever  it  may  be  desired,  therefore  esteems  it  to  be  his  duty  to  direct  the 
attention  of  ship-masters,  consignees,  and  freighters,  to  the  peril  to  which 
their  insurance  against  loss  will  be  exposed  by  any  violation  of  the  obliga¬ 
tions  imposed  on  neutral  powers  to  respect  actual  blockades,  and  not  to 
carry  contraband  of  war,  or  despatches  of  belligerents. 

Tn  these  cases  they  will  be  subject  to  all  the  resulting  losses  that  may 
follow,  without  the  benefit  of  any  protection  or  intervention  on  the  part  of 
his  Majesty’s  government.  Of  which  take  notice. 


The  minister  above  named. 


The  Hague,  June,  1861 


CORRESPONDENCE 


339 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  8]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  1,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  June  8  (No.  1)  has  been  received.  The  President 
approves  of  your  conduct  and  the  sentiments  you  expressed  on  the  occasion 
of  your  first  audience  by  his  Majesty.  We  are  gratified  by  your  confirma¬ 
tion  of  the  high  opinion  we  had  formed  of  the  fidelity  and  diligence  of  your 
predecessor. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seivard. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  7.]  U  kited  States  Legation, 

The  Hague,  July  4,  1861. 

Sir  :  Referring  to  your  last  despatch,  in  which  you  say  “the  government 
has  little  time  to  think  of  its  foreign  relations,  and  when  it  does  think  of 
them,  it  is  chiefly  to  consider  how  and  in  what  way  it  can  most  effectually 
counteract  the  efforts  of  the  revolutionists  to  procure  European  intervention 
in  their  favor,”  I  beg  to  observe  that  within  my  circle  of  observation  I 
find  no  occasion  to  change  the  opinion  I  have  heretofore  expressed  in  regard 
to  the  general  good  dispositions  of  the  European  governments  towards  that 
of  the  United  States. 

That  there  is  any  feeling  of  active  sympathy,  I  should  fear  to  allege. 
Every  nation  has  its  own  peculiar,  and  to  itself,  important  cares  and  diffi¬ 
culties,  and  each  devotes  the  most  of  its  time  and  attentions  to  these,  caring 
comparatively  little  for  those  of  others  except  so  for  as  they  affect  their  own. 
The  domestic  disturbances  of  a  country  three  thousand  miles  away  is  thus 
regarded  with  a  philosophic  equanimity,  and  I  think  I  may  say  with  very 
great  indifference  except  in  respect  to  the  commercial  bearing  of  the  events 
occurring  there.  But  if  little  especial  sympathy  is  felt  for  the  United  States 
government,  still  less  is  felt  for  the  insurgents,  whose  revolt  is  seen  to  have 
caused  the  dire  calamities  now  existing.  So  that  we  may  still  be  allowed 
to  claim  a  balance  in  our  favor  of  the  good  wishes  of  European  governments. 

The  revolutionary  state  of  things  in  the  United  States  has  been,  and  is 
being  very  generally  and  thoroughly  discussed  in  European  journals,  and  all 
such  discussion  favors,  of  necessity,  the  cause  of  the  government.  This  is 
especially  true  of  the  discussions  in  the  German  publications.  * 

^T'  -T*  'T*  *T*  "T* 


In  Germany,  where  discussion  always  partakes  more  of  an  absolute  na 
ture  than  anywhere  else,  from  causes  not  necessary  to  delineate  here,  Amer¬ 
ican  affairs  are  more  justly  and  comprehensively  handled,  and  being  more 
completely  divested  of  their  transitory  features,  results  as  I  have  stated. 

On  the  whole,  I  think  our  government  and  the  people  it  represents  have 
not,  thus  far,  any  adequate  cause  to  complain  of  the  attitude  of  European 
governments,  or  the  state  of  European  opinion,  toward  them.  The  insur¬ 
gents  are  nowhere  in  favor,  and  certainly  have  not  received  so  much  tolera¬ 
tion  and  encouragement  in  Europe  as  was  extended  to  them  by  a  portion  of 


340 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


our  own  press  and  by  the  administration  of  Mr.  Buchanan,  previous  to  the 
breaking  out  of  the  war.  ***** 

^  >)»  vLr 

m  w  ^  ^  ^  w 

We  all  feel  the  deepest  interest  in  the  progress  of  events  at  home,  and  the 
utmost  solicitude  to  do  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  whatever  is  possible  to 
further  the  ideas  and  purposes  of  our  government.  For  my  own  part  I  am 
most  anxious  to  go  wherever,  and  to  do  whatever,  I  can  to  promote  the  de¬ 
signs  and  aid  the  labors  of  the  administration  in  the  great  work  devolved 
upon  them. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 

lion.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  9  ]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch,  No.  8,  dated  June  14th  has  been  received,  and  the 
information  which  it  brings  is  a  cause  of  high  satisfaction.  Your  proceed¬ 
ings  in  the  various  matters  mentioned  in  that  communication  are  approved. 
I  am,  sir,  respectfully  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  11.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  duly  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch,  No.  4,  dated  June  16  has  been  duly  received. 

You  will,  at  the  first  convenient  opportunity,  make  known  to  the  minister 
of  foreign  affairs  the  satisfaction  with  which  the  United  States  has  received 
intelligence  of  the  prompt  decision  and  friendly  action  of  the  government  of 
the  Netherlands  on  the  subject  of  the  disturbances  occurring  in  our  country. 

You  will  receive  herewith,  confidentially,  a  copy  of  my  last  despatch  to 
Mr.  Dayton  on  the  subject  of  the  proffer  of  our  adhesion  to  the  declaration  of 
the  congress  of  Paris.  It  will  serve,  I  think,  to  relieve  your  uncertainty, 
and  to  indicate  the  course  you  shall  pursue.  Only  Great  Britain  and  France 
have  assumed  to  say  to  us  that  they  regard  our  country  as  divided  or 
broken,  for  any  purpose,  whether  of  war  or  of  peace.  And  we  have  not 
thought  proper  to  receive  that  communication  from  them.  We  treat  as  being 
the  sovereign  government  over  all  the  Union — the  disloyal  and  the  loyal,  all 
alike — or  we  do  not  treat  at  all.  This  simple  statement  will,  perhaps,  be 
necessary  to  make  the  paper  addressed  to  Mr.  Dayton  clearly  intelligible  to 
you. 

These  latter  remarks  you  will  consider  as  confidential. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


341 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  8.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  July  12,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  communicated  to  Baron  de  Zuylen,  as  directed,  your  high 
appreciation  of  the  course  of  his  government  on  our  domestic  affairs,  as 
manifested  and  expressed  in  his  reply  to  my  predecessor’s  communication  of 
the  8th  of  April  last. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washmgfon. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 


No.  12.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  26,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  very  interesting  despatch  of  June  22  (No.  6)  has  been  received. 
The  President  is  gratified  with  the  just  and  proper  sentiments  expressed  by 
the  government  of  Holland  concerning  the  United  States. 

Subsequently  to  the  sending  of  my  despatch  to  you  concerning  the  affairs 
of  the  western  powers  in  Japan,  communications  have  been  received  from 
the  Tycoon,  and  his  ministers  for  foreign  affairs,  measurably  supported  by 
Mr.  Harris,  our  excellent  representatative  there,  urging  a  delay  in  opening 
the  ports  under  the  treaty  in  terms  so  strong  that  the  President  has  con¬ 
cluded  that  I  shall  have  a  conference  here  with  the  representatives  of  the 
powers  interested  in  the  question.  This  conference  will  be  held  next  week. 
You  will  be  advised  of  whatever  is  considered. 

We  have  met  a  reverse  in  arms.  But  though  at  first  it  seemed  appalling, 
because  it  was  as  severe  as  it  was  unexpected,  yet  the  result  is  even  now 
seen  to  be  only  a  signal  for  greater  effort  and  more  determined  resolution. 

I  send  you,  confidentially,  a  copy  of  my  most  recent  despatch  to  Mr. 
Adams. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 


No.  15.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  15,  1861. 

Sir:  We  learn,  in  a  manner  which  obliges  us  to  give  unwilling  credit, 
that  the  Sumter,  an  armed  steamer,  well  known  through  all  the  American 
seas  to  be  a  privateer  fitted  out  for  and  actually  engaged  in  depredations 
upon  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  by  some  disloyal  citizens,  under  the 
command  of  an  officer  named  Semmes,  on  or  about  the  17th  of  July  last, 
entered  the  port  of  Cura^oa  and  communicated  directly  with  the  local  author- 


342 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


ities  of  that  island;  that  she  was  hospitably  received  there  and  was  permitted 
to  take  a  large  quantity  of  coals,  (said  to  be  120  tons,)  and  also  to  take  on 
board  a  large  supply  of  provisions;  that  the  privateer’s  crew  was  allowed 
entire  freedom  in  the  place;  that  when  one  of  the  crew  had  deserted,  an  order 
was  given  by  the  authorities  of  the  port  for  his  arrest;  that  the  attempt 
for  that  purpose  having  proved  unsuccessful,  the  same  authorities  pledged 
themselves  that  the  arrest  should  be  afterwards  effectually  made,  and  that 
the  deserter  should  be  held  in  custody,  to  be  surrendered  to  the  pirate  captain 
on  his  return  homeward  to  the  island. 

You  are  instructed  to  bring  this  matter  immediately  to  the  notice  of  the 
government  of  the  Netherlands.  The  subject  of  damages  for  so  great  a 
violation  of  the  rights  of  the  United  States  will  be  considered  when  we  shall 
have  properly  verified  the  facts  of  the  case.  In  the  mean  time  you  will  ask 
the  government  of  the  Netherlands  for  any  explanation  of  the  transaction  it 
may  be  able  or  see  fit  to  give.  You  will  further  say  that  the  United  States, 
if  the  case  thus  stated  shall  prove  to  be  correct,  will  expect,  in  view  of  the 
treaties  existing  between  the  two  countries,  and  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations,  as  well  as  upon  the  ground  of  assurances  recently  received  from 
the  goveror  of  the  Netherlands,  that  it  will  disown  the  action  of  its 
authorities  at  Cura§oa,  and  will  adopt  efficient  means  to  prevent  a  recurrence 
of  such  proceedings  hereafter.  If  the  case  thus  presented  shall  not  be  found 
entirely  erroneous,  or  be  very  essentially  modified,  the  United  States  will 
expect  that  the  governor  of  the  island  of  Cur  ago  a  will  be  promptly  made 
to  feel  the  severe  displeasure  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands,  a  coun¬ 
try  with  which  we  have  lived  on  terms  of  unbroken  friendship  for  three 
quarters  of  a  century. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq  ,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  13.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague,  August  18,  1861. 

Sir:  I  avail  myself  of  the  departure  of  my  predecessor,  Mr.  Murphy,  for 
America,  who  sails  in  the  Arago  from  Havre  on  the  20th  instant,  to  send  you 
this  communication. 

The  news  from  America  to  the  8th  instant,  which  comes  to-day  by  telegraph, 
is  received  with  satisfaction..  The  continued  successes  in  Missouri;  the 
election  of  a  majority  of  Union  representatives  to  the  Kentucky  legislature, 
giving  renewed  assurance  of  the  conservative  position  of  that  important 
State;  the  prevailing  quiet  in  Maryland  and  Delaware;  and  the  failure  of 
the  confederate  commanders  to  take  any  advantage  of  their  recent  extra¬ 
ordinary  good  fortune,  all  tend  to  reproduce  the  general  state  of  feeling 
that  prevailed  on  this  side  of  the  Atlantic  before  the  occurrence  of  the 
disaster  at  Bull  Run. 

But  there  has  never  been  anything  here  to  correspond  to  what  appears  to 
have  been  the  momentary  depression  and  alarm  felt  at  home  after  the  repulse 
of  our  troops.  The  event  was  never  regarded  here  to  be  of  great  signifi¬ 
cance,  as  it  was  a  flight  without  a  pursuit,  and  a  victory  of  which  the  victor 
was  not  aware. 

The  reverse  seems  now  to  be  all  summed  up  in  the  fact  of  a  failure  to 
advance  on  the  part  of  the  Union  forces. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


343 


Still  it  is  not  to  be  disguised  that  the  obstacles  to  be  overcome  in  reducing 
the  insurgents  are  regarded  to  be  formidable  when  the  large  armed  force 
they  have  been,  able  to  bring  into  the  field  is  considered.  There  exists, 
however,  a  consideration  which  seems  to  check  confidence  in  their  ability  to 
hold  out,  resting*  on  the  general  belief  of  their  destitution  of  resources  to 
maintain  a  large  body  of  troops  in  the  field,  and  that  the  lapse  of  time  will 
thus  operate  unfavorably  on  their  levies. 

Your  despatch  of  the  26th  of  July  (No.  12)  is  received.  I  am  gratified 
to  know  that  I  am  able  to  communicate  anything  which  you  deem  of  particular 
interest. 

It  affords  me  still  greater  satisfaction  to  have  your  assurance  in  the  copy 
of  your  despatch  to  Mr.  Adams,  therewith  enclosed,  that  “it  is  not  likely 
anything  will  now  be  done  here  hastily  or  inconsiderately  affecting  our 
foreign  relations.” 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  14.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hogue ,  August  28,  1861. 

Sir:  The  mails  of  to-day  bring  intelligence  from  America  that  the  privateer 
steamer  Sumter,  bearing  the  so-called  confederate  flag,  has  been  permitted 
by  the  authorities  at  Cura9oa  to  enter  and  replenish  her  exhausted  stock  of 
fuel  and  supplies  with  which  to  renew  her  career  of  depredation  upon  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States. 

I  have  instantly  called  the  attention  of  this  government  to  these  reports, 
and  have  assured  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  that,  if  they  shall  be  borne 
out  by  the  facts  of  the  case,  in  view  of  the  recent  prompt  and  friendly 
action  of  the  Dutch  government  in  relation  to  privateering,  they  will  be 
regarded  by  the  government  and  people  of  the  United  States  with  equal 
regret  and  surprise. 

I  think  it  will  prove  that  the  orders  of  the  Dutch  government  to  their 
colonial  authorities  to  exclude  privateers  from  their  ports,  which  were  issued 
about  the  middle  of  June,  and  of  which  I  apprised  you  on  the  16th  of  that 
month  in  my  despatch  No.  4,  have  by  some  means  failed  to  reach  Curasoa. 
The  ships  which  were  sent  out  were  expected  to  rendezvous  at  Curagoa  and 
winter  in  those  seas.  But  they  may  be  delaying  their  visit  to  avoid  the 
heats  of  summer.  I  hope  to  be  able  to  afford  you  more  detailed  information 
by  the  next  mail,  which  want  of  time  prevents  me  from  obtaining  now  in 
season  for  this. 

I  thought  of  suggesting  the  publication  in  our  newspapers  of  the  Dutch 
proclamations,  copies  of  which  I  forwarded  to  you  with  the  despatch  referred 
to,  but  I  concluded  the  department  did  not  need  my  suggestions  on  that 

head. 

if:******** 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant. 

JAMES  S.  BIKE. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  &c.,  &c. 


344 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  15.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  September  4,  1861. 

Sir  Since  writing  to  you  on  the  28th  ultimo  in  regard  to  my  action  on 
the  strength  of  the  public  reports  in  respect  to  the  steamer  Sumter,  I  have 
received  your  despatch,  No.  15,  under  date  of  the  15th  of  August,  and  also 
its  duplicate. 

I  immediately  addressed  a  communication  to  this  government  presenting 
the  substance  of  that  despatch.  I  have  since  had  two  interviews  with  Baron 
Van  Zuylen,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  on  the  questions  involved  and 
likety  to  be  involved  in  the  case.  Mr.  Van  Zuylen  has  informed  me  that  his 
government  has  received  a  brief  communication  from  the  governor  of 
Cura9oa  stating  that  the  vessel  in  question  put  into  the  port  of  Cura9oa  in 
distress,  and  was  not  a  privateer. 

In  the  course  of  our  first  interview  Baron  V an  Zuylen  dropped  the  remark 
that  it  was  probable  the  vessel  was  regarded  as  a  ship-of-war  of  the  so- 
called  Confederate  States,  but  he  subsequently  seemed  to  desire  to  withdraw 
the  suggestion. 

I  felt  it  to  be  my  duty  to  protest  against  the  idea  that  aid  and  countenance 
could  be  afforded  by  a  friendly  power  to  the  Sumter,  though  she  did  assume 
the  character  of  a  ship-of-war  of  the  insurgents.  I  claimed  that  were  she 
afforded  shelter  and  supplies  on  this  ground  by  the  authorities  at  Cura9oa, 
and  should  the  Dutch  government  approve  the  act,  it  would  be,  substantially, 
a  recognition  of  the  southern  confederacy,  and  that  in  my  judgment  such 
an  act  would  be  regarded  by  the  United  States  as  an  unfriendly,  and  even 
hostile  act,  which  might  lead  to  the  gravest  consequences.  I  held  that 
nothing  more  need  be  asked  by  the  so-stvled  Confederate  States,  as  a  practi¬ 
cal  measure  of  recognition,  than  that  a  ship  like  the  Sumter,  claiming  to  be 
a  national  vessel  of  those  States,  should  be  permitted  to  enter  the  neighbor¬ 
ing  ports  of  foreign  nations,  and  there  obtain  the  necessary  means  to  enable 
her  to  depredate  upon  the  commerce  of  the  United  States.  That  such  a 
course  on  the  part  of  any  power,  aggravated  by  the  fact  that  she  was  unable 
to  obtain  such  supplies  at  home,  so  far  from  being  neutral  conduct  was 
really  to  afford  the  most  efficient  aid  to  the  men  who  wrere  in  rebellion 
against  their  own  government,  and  plundering  and  destroying  the  vessels 
and  property  of  their  fellow  citizens  on  the  high  seas.  I  protested  against 
such  a  doctrine  as  tending  necessarily  to  the  termination  of  all  friendly 
relations  between  our  government  and  any  government  that  would  tolerate 
such  practices,  whether  that  government  were  France  or  England,  or  Spain 
or  Holland.  I  remarked  that  it  was  not  for  me  to  judge  of  the  purposes  of 
European  powers  in  regard  to  the  existing  state  of  things  in  the  United 
States;  but  if  there  were  to  be  exhibited  a  disposition  anywhere  to  take 
advantage  of  our  present  situation,  I  believed  it  would  be  found  that  such 
a  course  could  not  be  taken  with  impunity  now,  nor  without  leading  to 
alienation  and  bitterness  in  the  future. 

Baron  Van  Zuylen  hereupon  explained  that  the  earnest  desire  of  his 
government  was  to  maintain  friendly  relations  with  the  United  States,  and 
to  do  nothing  to  interrupt  the  existing  harmony  between  the  two  countries. 
That  the  point  in  question  had  not  been  considered  by  his  government,  and 
that  the  whole  case  should  receive  careful  attention  so  soon  as  the  facts 
relating  to  it  could  be  ascertained.  He  has  since  sent  me  a  note  on  the 
subject,  which  I  enclose. 

The  baron  stated  to  me  that  the  governor  of  Cura9oa  had  received  the  in¬ 
structions  of  the  Dutch  government,  and  the  baron  was  of  the  opinion  that 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


345 


the  governor  had  paid  too  much  attention  to  the  letter,  overlooking  the 
spirit  of  the  instructions,  which  remark  I  took  to  mean,  that  as  the  gover¬ 
nor’s  instructions  only  ordered  the  exclusion  of  privateers  and  vessels  not  in 
distress,  and  that  as  the  Sumter  claimed  to  be  a  vessel  of  war,  and  to  be  in 
distress,  the  governor  had  sought  to  shield  his  action  under  this  shallow  and 
transparent  device  of  the  privateer,  which  could  certainly  deceive  nobody 
who  was  not  willing  to  be  deceived. 

I  presume  there  is  no  danger  of  the  Dutch  government  taking  any  position 
on  this  question  in  haute,  as  that  is  not  their  way.  It  is  quite  probable  they 
will  take  time  to  send  to  Curcaoa  for  facts  and  particulars.  Meantime  the 
British  government  seem  likely  to  have  to  act  on  the  same  question,  as  I  see 
the  Sumter  has  been  at  Trinidad,  which  will  afford  them  a  precedent,  for 
which  I  am  the  more  sorry,  as  I  learned  enough  while  I  was  in  England  to 
satisfy  me  that  that  government  was  likely  to  indulge  in  loose  practices  in 
regard  to  vessels  sailing  under  the  confederate  flag. 

But  there  is  nothing  in  the  circumstances  or  dispositions  of  this  govern¬ 
ment,  in  my  opinion,  to  induce  them  to  exhibit  unfriendliness  to  us  or  grant 
favors  to  the  confederates,  whatever  there  may  be  on  the  part  of  some  of 
their  slaveholding  governors,  of  whom  I  infer  him  of  Curagoa  to  be  one.  I 
expect  therefore  to  find  the  authorities  here  pursue  a  course  void  of  offence 
towards  the  United  States,  however  others  may  act.  I  shall  make  it  my 
endeavor  to  induce  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs  to  have  sent  out  at  once 
such  instructions  to  the  West  Indies  as  will  prevent  the  Sumter,  or  her  con¬ 
federates,  from  making  use  of  the  Dutch  ports  in  future,  whatever  their  pre¬ 
tensions 

Since  penning  the  foregoing,  and  at  the  last  moment  before  being  com¬ 
pelled  to  close  for  the  mail,  I  have  had  a  third  interview  with  Baron  Van 
Zuylen.  He  states  that  the  instructions  sent  out  in  June  were  framed  pur¬ 
posely  different  from  those  of  France,  and  excluded  all  reference  to  vessels 
of  war,  solely  because  that  course  was  deemed  more  favorable  to  the  United 
States  government  which  had  ships-of-war  and  no  privateers.  You  will  re¬ 
member  that  I  called  attention  to  this  peculiarity  at  the  time. 

In  answer  to  my  inquiry  whether  he  would  not  immediately  adapt  his  in¬ 
structions  to  cover  such  cases  as  that  of  the  Sumter,  information  of  which 
I  was  desirous  to  transmit  by  the  next  steamer,  he  replied  that  the  subject 
was  now  under  consideration  in  the  colonial  department.  lie  insisted,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  governor  of  Curagoa  declared  the  vessel  was  admitted  on  the 
ground  of  her  being  in  distress,  she  having  carried  away  one  of  her  masts, 
and  that  before  admitting  her  he  convoked  his  council,  who  recommend  the 
course  he  pursued. 

I  renewedly  represented  to  Baron  Van  Zuylen  the  very  grave  character  of 
this  question  and  its  vital  importance  to  the  commerce  of  the  United  States. 

Since  the  government  here  must  by  this  time  fully  understand  that  our 
government  is  very  much  in  earnest  on  this  subject,  I  entertain  the  hope 
that  they  will  hurry  their  deliberations  to  a  favorable  conclusion. 

Allusion  having  been  made  on  my  part  to  the  possible  influence  of  slave¬ 
holding  sympathies  in  this  case,  1  was  pleased  to  be  informed  by  Baron  Van 
Zuylen  that  the  question  of  slavery  had  been  finally  determined  in  Holland, 
and  that  emancipation  is  to  take  place  in  all  the  Dutch  colonies  within  two 
years. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  BIKE. 


Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


34  6 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Baron  Van  Zuylen  to  Mr.  Pike. 
[Translation.] 


The  Hague,  September  2,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  communications 
of  the  28th  of  August  and  of  2d  of  September. 

I  hastened  to  communicate  these  notes  to  the  minister  of  the  colonies,  and 
I  hope  to  be  enabled  at  an  early  day,  and  so  soon  as  the  reports  of  the 
Governor  of  Cura^oa  respecting  the  affair  of  the  steamer  “  Sumter”  shall  be 
known  to  me,  to  give  you  a  reply  upon  this  subject. 

Be  pleased,  sir,  to  accept  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  high  consideration, 

BE  ZUYLEN  BE  NIJEVELT. 


Mr.  Pike, 

Minister  Resident  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  21.]  Bepartment  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  5,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  18,  (No.  13,)  has  been  received,  and  the 
opinions  it  expresses  seem  to  be  just,  while  the  information  it  gives  is  very 
satisfactory.  Treason  is  apt  to  mature  its  energies  before  it  strikes  the  first 
blow;  on  the  other  hand,  loyalty  is  unapprehensive  of  danger  and  usually 
waits  for  conviction  of  the  necessity  for  defence.  The  course  of  this  domestic 
civil  war  illustrates  this  maxim.  The  fortunes  of  the  insurrection  hang  on 
immediate  success  and  despatch;  efforts,  therefore,  are  made  to  secure  it.  I 
feel  sure,  on  the  contrary,  that  the  government  has  been  continually  gaining 
strength  with  every  expenditure  of  vigor  it  has  made.  You  will  be  gratified 
to  learn  that  the  paper  issued  by  the  government  is  at  par  in  the  market 
where  gold  and  silver  are  recognized  as  the  only  lawful  tender  in  the  pay¬ 
ment  of  debts. 

While  you  will  not  hold  out  inducements  of  rewards  or  bounties  for  soldiers, 
you  may  say,  whenever  it  shall  seem  expedient,  that  any  foreigners  arriving 
in  this  country  will  probably  find  no  difficulty  in  finding  military  employment. 

With  a  high  appreciation  of  your  discretion  and  vigilance,  I  am,  sir,  re¬ 
spectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARB. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  Sfc.,  <£<?.,  &c. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  16.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

The  Hague ,  September  11,  1861. 

Sir:  Subsequently  to  the  interviews  I  had  with  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  of  which  I  spoke  in  my  last,  and  after  the  transmission  to  you  of  my 
despatch  (No.  15)  of  the  4th  instant,  I  addressed  the  following  communica¬ 
tion  to  Baron  Van  Zuylen: 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


347 


“  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

“  The  Hague ,  September  7,  1861. 

“Sir:  I  do  not  understand  this  government  to  have  yet  distinctly  conceded 
‘belligerent  rights’  to  the  self-styled  Confederate  States. 

“In  behalf  of  my  government  I  beg  to  say  that  I  trust  Holland  will 
not  take  this  position  now,  and  open  the  questions  to  flow  therefrom.  By 
doing  so,  this  government  may  make  an  enemy  of  the  United  States,  through 
the  consequences  growing  out  of  that  act.  But  Holland  will  not  thereby 
make  a  friend  of  the  rash  and  misguided  men  who  lead  the  rebellion  against 
the  American  government.  For  their  object  is  to  perpetuate  and  extend 
African  slavery.  With  this  object  Holland  can  have  no  sympathy.  Your 
government  has  just  now  determined  to  abolish  that  remnant  of  barbarism 
in  your  colonial  possessions. 

“  The  slaveholders’  rebellion  cannot  be  successful.  The  United  States  has 
determined  it  shall  not  be,  and  that  it  will  preserve  the  union  of  the  States 
at  whatever  cost. 

“But  even  if  we  admit,  for  argument’s  sake,  that  some  of  the  slaveholding 
States  should  be  allowed  hereafter  to  depart  from  the  Union,  still  would  the 
rebellion  be  unsuccessful  in  its  objects,  and  hospitality  shown  to  its  progress 
be  unavailing.  The  United  States  would  be  still  resolute  to  defeat  the 
purposes  of  the  rebel  slaveholder.  They  would  do  this  by  their  own 
unaided  efforts.  They  might  readily  co-operate  with  foreign  powers  to  the 
same  end.  Such  of  those  powers  as  hold  possessions  in  America,  wherein 
slavery  has  been  abolished,  would  join  in  this  object  from  motives  of  justice 
and  humanity,  as  well  as  from  considerations  of  policy  and  consistency. 
Those  who  have  colonies  where  the  practice  still  prevails  would  gladly  con¬ 
cur  in  self-defence.  England  having  abolished  slavery,  France  having  put  it 
under  her  feet,  the  position  of  these  two  great  maritime  powers  on  this 
subject  is  fixed.  The  recent  action  of  the  French  Emperor  is  conclusive  as 
to  the  policy  of  that  powerful  monarchy.  Spain,  in  her  late  trespass  upon 
St.  Domingo,  has  been  constrained  to  formally  stipulate  that  she  will  not 
reintroduce  slavery  in  that  island;  Mexico  and  Central  America  will  be  only 
too  eager  to  enter  into  stipulations  that  shall  save  them  from  any  attempted 
spoliation,  and  preserve  the  condition  of  freedom  from  slavery  for  all  their 
inhabitants  now  and  hereafter.  A  common  civilization  throughout  the 
world  will  look  with  favor  on  a  common  union  to  crush  the  offensive  pur¬ 
poses  of  the  rebellious  slaveholder.  His  success,  therefore,  is  out  of  the 
question.  Unless  the  world  is  to  go  backward,  and  history  reverse  its 
lessons,  this  rebellion  in  its  leading  purpose  is  foredoomed.  Even  govern¬ 
ments  cannot  save  that  against  which  humanity  revolts.  Surrounded  by 
communities  on  the  north,  on  the  south,  on  the  west,  that  have  expelled 
slavery;  the  islands  of  the  Caribbean  sea  nearly  all  emancipated  from 
this  pestilent  system;  the  fabric  of  the  rebellious  slaveholder,  which  he 
is  so  madly  ambitious  to  erect,  were  even  its  temporary  establishment 
possible,  would  soon  be  washed  away  by  the  attrition  of  surrounding  influ¬ 
ence  upon  its  crumbling  foundations,  and  its  remains  left  a  ruin  in  the  world. 

“It  is  thus  neither  just  nor  politic,  in  any  point  of  view,  for  the  powers  of 
Europe  to  do  anything  to  encourage  this  abortive  and  criminal  enterprise 
of  the  rebellious  American  slaveholder.  For  though  they  should  do  ever 
so  much,  the  effort  will  be  none  the  less  abortive,  through  the  operation  of 
forces  that  governments  cannot  control. 

“  The  recognition  of  ‘  belligerent  rights’ to  the  party  in  question  by  England 
and  France  was  a  precipitate  and  unnecessary  act.  It  was  surely  time 
enough  to  do  this  when  the  alternative  presented  an  embarrassing  situation. 

“The  Dutch  government  has  been  wiser.  In  continuing  to  occupy  the 
position  of  refusing  all  countenance  to  the  authors  of  such  a  hateful  rebel- 


348 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


lion,  the  Netherlands  will  do  an  act  which  will  be  viewed  with  the  liveliest 
satisfaction  by  the  United  States,  and,  I  may  be  permitted  to  add,  one 
worthy  the  traditions  of  this  ancient  and  renowned  state,  and  will  set  an 
example  well  worthy  the  respect  and  consideration  of  other  nations. 

“  The  undersigned,  &c.,  &c. 

“ Baron  Van  Zuylen,  &c.,  &c” 

On  the  9th  instant  I  had  an  interview  with  Baron  Van  Zuylen,  again 
urging  him  in  the  most  earnest  manner  to  issue  such  instructions  to  the  Dutch 
authorities  in  the  West  Indies  as  would  peremptorily  exclude  from  their 
ports  every  species  of  craft  set  afloat  by  the  secessionists. 

Baron  Van  Zuylen  appears,  and  I  have  no  doubt  is,  very  desirous  to  do  all 
he  possibly  can,  under  what  he  deems  the  requirements  of  public  law,  to 
carrv  out  the  wishes  of  the  United  States  in  this  matter.  He  does  not  con- 
sider  that  his  government  has  recognized  belligerent  rights,  and  desires  not 
to  be  pressed  on  that  point.  I  told  him  we  had  no  desire  to  press  him  to  do 
anything,  except  to  issue  such  instructions  to  his  colonial  governors  as  will 
effectually  exclude  the  piratical  vessels  of  the  secessionists  from  making  use 
of  the  Dutch  ports. 

He  asked  then  if  we  would  consent  to  have  our  own  ships-of-war  excluded. 
I  told  him  if  that  was  necessary  to  relieve  him  from  a  dilemma,  I  did  not 
know  how  far  such  an  act  might  be  tolerated  for  the  sake  of  an  advantage 
which  we  could  procure  in  no  other  way.  We  might  not  find  fault,  if  thereby 
we  found  our  interests  advanced.  But,  of  course,  I  could  not  undertake  to 
commit  my  government  on  the  point.  I  remarked  that  exclusion  would  not 
operate  to  our  disadvantage,  inasmuch  as  we  had  command  of  the  sea,  while 
it  would  be  fatal  to  the  plunderers,  as  they  had  no  retreat  at  home.  He  in¬ 
timated  that  his  government  contemplated  making  the  proposition  to  the 
United  States.  He  also  remarked  that  the  course  of  our  own  government 
threw  impediments  in  their  way;  for  while  we  regarded  the  secessionists  as 
rebels,  we  did  not  seem  to  treat  them  as  such  when  taken  prisoners,  not  even 
their  privateers.  1  concluded  the  interview  by  renewedly  urging  every  con¬ 
sideration  I  could  adduce  to  induce  him  to  issue  the  desired  orders,  and  to 
lose  no  time  in  doing  it. 

He  will  soon  make  a  written  communication  on  the  whole  subject,  which 
I  will  forward  at  the  earliest  moment  after  receiving  it. 

After  my  interview,  I  addressed  Baron  Van  Zuylen  the  following  note: 

“  United  States  Legation, 

“  The  Hague,  September  9,  1861. 

“  Sir:  Referring  to  our  conversation  of  to-day,  I  beg  to  suggest  that  what 
appears  to  you  a  practical  difficulty  may,  it  seems  to  me,  be  properly  over¬ 
come  by  your  government  issuing  orders  to  its  colonial  authorities  to  regard 
all  armed  vessels  bearing  the  so-called  confederate  flag  as  privateers.  They 
are  so  in  fact,  and  they  should  not  be  allowed  to  shield  themselves  under  any 
other  pretext.  Unless  a  vessel  claiming  to  be  a  ship-of-war  exhibit  some 
prima  facie  evidence  of  being  such,  in  her  size,  and  in  her  other  external 
symbols  and  aspects,  which  these  piratical  craft  do  not,  the  proper  authorities 
may  well  claim  the  right  to  decline  all  investigation  of  the  case,  and  assume 
her  unlawful  character. 

“  The  undersigned,  &c.  &c. 

“Baron  Van  Zuylen.” 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


349 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr%  Seward. 


[Extract.] 


No.  IT.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague,  September  18,  1861. 

Sir:  The  minister  of  foreign  affairs  has  not  yet  furnished  me  with  the 
promised  communication  on  the  Sumter  case. 

On  the  12th  instant  I  addressed  him  the  following  note: 

“Sir:  Referring  to  my  recent  communications  to  you  on  the  case  of  the 
Sumter,  I  beg  to  say,  in  order  to  avoid  all  possibility  of  cavil  or  misappre¬ 
hension,  that,  in  speaking  of  or  alluding  to  the  marauding  vessels  of  the 
persons  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States  government  as  ‘privateers,’  I 
refer  to  them  as  such  only  in  the  sense  of  their  own  pretensions;  the  United 
States  government,  as  you  are  well  aware,  regarding  them  solely  as  piratical 
craft,  and  the  persons  engaged  thereon  as  pirates. 

“  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  &c.,  &c. 

“Baron  Van  Zuylen,  &c.,  &c.” 


viv  v'v  v*.  ^  O/  v  tv 

^  ^  ^  ^  ^  /T\  ^  ^ 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  22.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  23,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  August  28,  No.  14,  has  been  received.  We  await 
with  some  interest  the  explanations  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands 
concerning  the  affair  at  Cura^oa,  but  at  the  same  time  wTith  very  great  confi¬ 
dence  that  it  will  be  conformable  to  the  good  and  friendly  relations  existing 
between  the  two  countries. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq ,  &c.,  &c.,  &c.. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  18.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  September  25,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  the  communication  from  the  Dutch  gov¬ 
ernment  in  reference  to  the  Sumter  case.  Though  dated  the  17th,  it  did  not 
make  its  appearance  to  me  till  the  20th. 

You  will  perceive  that  the  ground  taken  in  regard  to  the  harboring  of  the 
Sumter  in  the  port  of  Cura^oa  is,  that  it  was  the  case  of  a  vessel  in  distress. 

This  paper,  however,  goes  beyond  the  case  in  hand,  and  argues  the  claim 
of  the  seceding  States  to  be  considered  belligerents,  and  their  rights  as  such, 
besides  going  over  the  whole  ground  ol  the  rights  of  neutrals. 


350 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Baron  Van  Zuylen  makes  out  to  his  own  satisfaction  that  the  secessionists 
hold  that  position,  and  that  this  carries  with  it  the  right  of  hospitality,  in 
neutral  ports,  to  their  ships-of-war. 

To  my  suggestion  in  my  note  of  the  9th,  that  the  Sumter  was  in  no  just 
sense  a  ship-of-war,  but  a  privateer,  or,  as  our  government  claims,  a  pirate, 
and  that  the  want  of  the  ordinary  characteristics  of  a  ship-of-war,  besides 
the  fact  that  she  bore  a  strange  flag  of  no  recognized  nationality,  entitled  us 
to  ask  of  Holland,  as  a  friendly  nation,  to  assume  her  unlawful  character. 
Mr.  Van  Zuylen  opposes  an  argument  to  show  that  the  Sumter  was  really  a 
ship-of-war  of  the  Confederate  States,  and  that  an  impartial  neutrality  de¬ 
manded  that  she  be  so  treated.  He  finds  his  support  of  his  position  that  this 
was  the  Sumter’s  real  character  in  the  declarations  of  her  captain  and  in  the 
allegation  of  Harpers ’  Weekly. 

The  minister  of  foreign  affairs  seems  to  admit  the  force  of  the  argument  I 
had  previously  urged,  that  it  was  inconsistent  wTith  all  ideas  of  a  just  neu¬ 
trality  that  these  marauding  vessels  of  the  secessionists  could  be  allowed  to 
make  free  use  of  the  neighboring  ports  of  a  power  holding  friendly  relations 
with  the  United  States,  for  hostile  purposes,  and  this,  too,  while  deprived  of 
all  shelter  or  resource  at  home.  And,  in  reply  to  my  earnest  request  that 
he  would  cause  to  be  issued  to  the  Dutch  colonial  authorities  in  the  West 
Indies  orders  against  such  use  of  their  ports,  Baron  Van  Zuylen  de  Nijevelt 
declares,  under  cover  of  his  general  principles,  that  orders  shall  be  issued 
in  the  sense  of  forbidding  tbe  use  of  the  Dutch  ports  as  the  base  of  operations 
against  United  States  commerce,  or,  as  he  phrases  it,  by  either  of  the 
belligerents. 

In  regard  to  this  part  of  Mr.  Van  Zuylen’s  communication,  I  will  here 
observe  that  much  will  depend  upon  the  character  of  these  instructions,  and 
not  less  upon  the  spirit  in  which  they  are  executed.  It  is  in  the  power  of 
the  Dutch  government,  and  of  its  colonial  authorities,  to  so  act,  upon  the 
basis  of  the  rule  laid  down  on  this  head,  as  to  avoid  further  cause  of  com¬ 
plaint  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  and  to  effectually  prevent  these  sea 
robbers  from  making  use  of  the  Dutch  ports  as  a  means  of  pursuing  their 
ravages;  and  I  have  so  expressed  myself  to  Baron  Van  Zuylen  in  the  note 
of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  annex  a  copy.  I  will  add  that  I  have  confi¬ 
dence  that  such  orders  will  be  given. 

%•/  vL<  ^  \|/ 

'T'  'T'  ^ 

The  following  is  a  copy  of  my  note  to  Mr.  Van  Zuylen: 

“United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  September  23,  1861. 

“Sir:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  communication  of  the  17th 
instant,  which  will,  in  due  time,  receive  that- attention  its  importance  merits. 

“  Meantime  I  desire  to  observe  that,  as  must  have  been  obvious  to  you,  I 
have  hitherto  contented  myself  with  advancing  general  considerations  ap¬ 
pealing  to  the  friendly  dispositions  of  Holland,  rather  than  in  invoking  the 
application  of  the  strict  rules  of  public  law  to  the  case  under  review. 

“The  Dutch  government  exercises  its  undoubted  right  in  overlooking  such 
considerations,  and  in  assuming  the  championship  of  a  so-called  neutrality, 
which  insists  upon  treating  a  domestic  disturbance  as  a  war  between  equals. 

“  For  those  who  so  desire,  as  I  am  sure  Holland  does  not,  it  is  easy  to  be 
persuaded  of  an  incipient  nationality  in  an  insurrection,  and  to  see  a  sbip-of- 
war  in  every  pirate  that  insults  mankind  with  her  depredations  or  shocks  it 
with  her  crimes. 

“  I  have  great  satisfaction  in  learning  from  his  communication  that  Baron 
Van  Zuylen  recognizes  the  force  of  the  considerations  I  have  had  the  honor 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


351 


to  present  to  him  touching  the  evident  violation  of  a  just  neutrality  which 
is  involved  in  the  free  use  of  the  ports  of  the  Netherlands  by  the  cruisers  of 
persons  engaged  in  piratical  depredations  upon  the  commerce  and  shipping 
of  the  United  States,  and  also  in  learning  that  the  government  of  his  Majesty 
has  determined  that  it  will  not  permit  its  ports  to  be  made  the  base  of  opera¬ 
tions  against  that  commerce,  and  that  instructions  in  this  sense  will  be 
addressed  to  the  governors  of  the  Netherlands  colonial  possessions. 

“It  is  in  the  power  of  the  Dutch  government,  acting  upon  the  rule  it  has 
thus  laid  down,  to  issue  such  instructions  to  its  colonial  authorities  as  shall 
prevent  further  cause  of  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  if  those 
instructions  shall  be  executed  in  good  faith. 

“The  United  States  government  will  rely  upon  the  action  of  Holland  in 
this  respect,  and  will  still  confidently  look  for  such  a  course  on  the  part  of 
the  Dutch  government  as  will  aid  it  in  driving  the  instigators  of  rebellion 
and  plunderers  of  property  upon  the  high  seas  from  the  haunts  they  infest, 
and  in  bringing  them  to  condign  punishment. 

“  I  have  the  honor,  &c.,  &c. 


“JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


“Baron  Van  Zuylen,  &c.,  &c” 


To-day  I  have  addressed  Baron  Van  Zuylen  the  following  note: 


“United  States  Legation, 

“The  Hague ,  September  25,  1861. 


“Sir:  I  shall  to-day  forward  your  communication  of  the  17th  instant  to  my 
government.  I  do  it  with  reluctance,  since  its  basis  is  found,  as  I  have 
already  remarked  to  you,  in  the  assumption  of  the  government  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands  that  the  domestic  disturbance  in  the  United  States  is  a  war  between 
equals. 

“  It  cannot  be  supposed  that  the  United  States  will  consent  to  debate  the 
question  of  an  abridgment  of  their  sovereignty  with  Holland  or  any  other 
nation. 

“The  United  States  are  one  whole  undivided  nation,  especially  so  far  as 
foreign  nations  are  concerned,  and  Holland  is,  by  the  law  of  nations  and  by 
treaties,  not  a  neutral  power  between  two  imaginary  parties  there,  but  a 
friend  of  the  United  States.  There  is  in  the  United  States,  as  there  has 
always  been  since  the  establishment  of  the  government,  one  political  power, 
namely,  the  United  States  of  America,  con  potent  to  make  war  and  peace, 
and  conduct  alliances  and  commerce  with  loreign  nations.  There  is  none 
other,  either  in  fact,  or  recognized  by  foreign  nations.  There  is,  indeed,  an 
armed  sedition  seeking  to  overthrow  the  government,  and  the  government 
is  employing  military  and  naval  force  to  suppress  it.  But  these  facts  do 
not  constitute  a  war  presenting  two  belligcicnt  powers,  and  modifying  the 
national  character,  rights,  and  responsibilities,  or  the  character,  rights,  and 
responsibilities  of  foreign  nations. 

“That  Holland  should  take  a  different  view  of  the  case  will,  I  am  sure,  be 
a  subject  of  very  deep  regret  to  the  United  States. 

“  The  undersigned,  &c.,  &c. 

“JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


“  Baron  Van  Zuylen,  &c.,  (&c” 

********* 


I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  Wm.  Ii.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington,  D.  C. 


352 


CORRESPONDENCE 


Baron  Van  Zuylen  to  Mr.  Pike. 

[Translation.] 

The  Hague,  September  17,  1861. 

Sir:  The  department  of  the  colonies  has  just  communicated  to  me  the  in¬ 
formation,  transmitted  by  the  governor  of  Curacoa,  concerning  the  affair  of 
the  ship  “  Sumter,”  and  I  hasten  to  bring  to  your  notice  the  following  obser¬ 
vations,  by  way  of  sequence  to  the  preliminary  reply  which  I  had  the  honor 
to  address  to  you  on  the  2d  of  this  month.  According  to  the  principles  of 
the  law  of  nations,  all  nations  without  exception  may  admit  vessels  of  war 
belonging  to  a  belligerent  State  to  their  ports,  and  accord  to  them  all  the 
favors  which  constitute  an  asylum.  Conditions  are  imposed  on  said  vessels 
during  their  stay  in  the  port  or  roadstead.  For  example,  they  must  keep 
perfect  peace  with  all  vessels  that  may  be  there  ;  they  may  not  augment 
their  crews,  nor  the  number  of  their  guns,  nor  be  on  the  lookout  in  the 
ports  or  roadsteads  for  the  purpose  of  watching  after  hostile  vessels  arriv 
ing  or  departing,  &c.  Besides,  every  state  has  the  right  to  interdict  foreign 
vessels  of  war  from  entrance  to  ports  which  are  purely  military.  Thus  it 
was  that  Sweden  and  Denmark,  in  1854,  at  the  time  of  the  Crimean  war, 
reserved  the  right  to  exclude  vessels  of  war  from  such  or  such  ports  of 
their  dominions. 

The  neutral  power  has  also  the  right  to  act  like  France,  who,  by  her  dec¬ 
laration  of  neutrality  in  the  war  between  the  United  States  and  the  Con¬ 
federate  States,  under  date  of  9th  June  last,  (Moniteur  of  11th  June,)  does 
not  permit  any  vessel  of  war,  or  privateer,  of  one  or  the  other  of  the  bel¬ 
ligerents,  to  enter  and  remain  with  their  prizes  in  French  ports  longer  than 
twenty-four  hours,  unless  in  case  of  refuge  under  stress. 

In  the  proclamation  of  the  month  of  June  last,  which  was  communicated 
to  you  with  my  despatch  of  the  13th,  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  has 
not  excluded  vessels  of  war  from  her  ports. 

As  to  privateers,  the  greatest  number  of  the  maritime  nations  allows 
them  the  privilege  of  asylum  upon  the  same  conditions  nearly  as  to  vessels 
of  war. 

According*  to  a  highly-esteemed  author  on  the  law  of  nations,  (Haute- 
feuille,  Droits  et  Devoirs  des  Nations  Neutres,  I,  p.  139,)  privateers  may 
claim  entrance  into  the  ports  of  nations  which  have  consented  to  accord 
asylum  to  them,  not  only  in  cases  of  pressing  dangers,  but  even  in  cases  in 
which  they  may  deem  it  advantageous,  or  even  only  agreeable,  and  for  ob¬ 
taining  rest  or  articles  of  secondary  necessity,  such  as  the  refreshments 
they  may  have  need  of. 

The  terms  of  the  proclamation  of  the  Netherlands  government,  which 
admits  privateers  into  Netherlands  ports  only  in  cases  of  distress,  harmo¬ 
nize  with  this  doctrine. 

Moreover,  according  to  the  information  received  from  the  governor  of 
Curaijoa,  the  “Sumter”  was  actually  in  distress,  and  that  functionary  could 
not,  therefore,  refuse  to  allow  the  said  vessel  to  enter  the  port. 

Strong  in  its  amicable  intentions,  the  King’s  government  does  not  believe 
itself  bound  to  confine  itself  to  the  defence  of  the  conduct  of  one  of  its 
agents  in  the  particular  case  under  discussion.  It  is  not  ignorant  that  it 
can  or  may  hereafter  be  a  contested  question  in  such  cases  as  to  the  reality 
of  the  distress  in  which  such  vessel  or  other  would  be,  and  that  thus  the 
subject  of  the  admission  generally  of  the  Confederate  States  vessels  would 
rest  untouched.  I,  therefore,  sir,  think  it  opportune  to  look  into  the  ques- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


353 


tion  to  determine  whether  the  Sumter  should  have  been  admitted  at  Curacoa 
outside  of  the  condition  of  well-assured  distress. 

It  is  evident  that  the  reply  to  be  made  is  dependent  on  another  question — 
that  is  to  say,  was  this  vessel  a  man-of-war  or  a  privateer? 

In  the  latter  case,  the  Netherlands  government  could  not,  except  in  case 
of  a  putting  in  compelled  by  distress,  (relache  forcee,)  admit  the  Sumter 
into  the  ports  of  its  territories. 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  dispose  of  the  difficulty  by  the  declaration  that  the 
Sumter  is,  as  is  stated  in  your  despatches,  “  a  vessel  fitted  out  for,  and  ac¬ 
tually  engaged  in,  piratical  expeditions,”  or  “  a  privateer  steamer.”  Such 
an  assertion  should  be  clearly  proved,  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  law, 
“  affirmanti  incumbit,  probation 

After  having  poised,  with  all  the  attention  which  comports  with  the 
weightiness  of  the  matter,  the  facts  and  circumstances  which  characterize 
the  dissensions  which  now  are  lajung  desolate  the  United  States,  and  of 
which  no  government  more  desires  the  prompt  termination  than  does  that 
of  the  Netherlands,  I  think  I  may  express  the  conviction  that  the  Sumter  is 
not  a  privateer,  but  a  man-of-war — grounding  myself  on  the  following  con¬ 
siderations: 

In  the  first  place,  the  declaration  of  the  commander  of  the  vessel  given 
in  writing  to  the  governor  of  Cura9oa,  who  had  made  known  that  he  would 
not  allow  a  privateer  to  come  into  the  port,  and  had  then  demanded  expla¬ 
nations  as  to  the  character  of  the  vessel.  This  declaration  purported  “the 
Sumter  is  a  ship-of-war  duly  commissioned  by  the  government  of  the  Con¬ 
federate  States.” 

The  Netherlands  governor  had  to  be  contented  with  the  word  of  the  com¬ 
mander  couched  in  writing.  Mr.  Ortolan,  (Diplomatic  de  la  Mer,  I,  p.  217,) 
in  speaking  of  the  evidence  of  nationality  of  vessels  of  war,  thus  expresses 
himself : 

“  The  flag  and  the  pennant  are  visible  indications,  but  we  are  not  bound 
to  give  faith  to  them  until  they  are  sustained  by  a  cannot  shot.” 

The  attestation  of  the  commander  may  be  exigible,  but  other  proofs  must 
be  presumed;  and,  whether  on  the  high  seas  or  elsewhere,  no  foreign  power 
has  the  right  to  obtain  the  exhibition  of  them. 

Therefore  the  colonial  council  has  unanimously  concluded  that  the  word 
of  the  commanding  officer  was  sufficient. 

In  the  second  place,  the  vessel  armed  for  war  by  private  persons  is  called 
“privateer.”  The  character  of  such  vessel  is  settled  precisely,  and,  like  her 
English  name,  (privateer,)  indicates  sufficiently  under  this  circumstance 
that  she  is  a  private  armed  vessel — name  which  Mr.  Wheaton  gives  them. — 
(Elements  of  International  Law,  II,  p.  19.) 

Privateering  is  the  maritime  warfare  which  privateers  are  authorized  to 
make,  for  their  own  account ,  against  merchant  vessels  of  the  enemy  by  virtue 
of  letters  of  marque  which  are  issued  to  them  by  the  State. 

The  Sumter  is  not  a  private  vessel;  is  not  the  private  property  of  uncon¬ 
nected  individuals — of  private  ship-owners.  She,  therefore,  cannot  be  a 
privateer;  she  can  only  be  a  ship-of-war  or  ship  of  the  State  armed  for 
cruising.  Thus  the  Sumter  is  designated,  in  the  extract  annexed  from 
“Harpers’  Weekly,”  under  the  name  of  “rebel  ship-of-war.” 

Thirdly.  It  cannot  be  held,  as  you  propose  in  your  despatch  of  the  9th  of 
this  month,  that  all  vessels  carrying  the  confederate  flag  are,  without  dis¬ 
tinction,  to  be  considered  as  privateers,  because  the  principles  of  the  law  of 
nations,  as  well  as  the  examples  of  history,  require  that  the  rights  ot  war 
be  accorded  to  those  States. 


23 


354 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  government  of  the  United  States  holds  that  it  should  consider  the 
States  of  the  south  as  rebels. 

It  does  not  pertain  to  the  King’s  government  to  pronounce  upon  the  sub¬ 
ject  of  a  question  which  is  entirely  within  the  domain  of  the  internal  regu¬ 
lation  of  the  United  States;  neither  has  it  to  inquire  whether,  in  virtue  of 
the  Constitution  which  rules  that  republic,  the  States  of  the  south  can  sepa¬ 
rate  from  the  central  government,  and  whether  they  ought  then,  aye  or  no 
to  be  reputed  as  rebels  during  the  first  period  of  the  difficulties. 

But  I  deem  it  my  duty  to  observe  to  you,  sir,  that,  according  to  the 
doctrines  of  the  best  publicists,  such  as  Yattel,  III,  c.  18,  §  292,  and  Mr.  de 
Rayneval,  Droit  de  la  Nature  et  des  Gens,  I,  p.  161,  there  is  a  notable 
difference  between  rebellion  and  civil  war.  “When,”  says  Yattel,  “  a  party 
is  formed  in  the  state,  which  no  longer  obeys  its  sovereign,  and  is  strong 
enough  to  make  head  against  him,  or  in  a  republic,  when  the  nation  divides 
into  two  opposing  parties,  and  on  one  side  and  the  other  take  up  arms,  then 
it  is  civil  war.”  It  is,  therefore,  the  latter  which  now  agitates  the  great 
American  republic. 

But,  in  this  case,  the  rights  of  war  must  be  accorded  to  the  two  parties. 

Let  me  be  allowed  to  cite  here  only  two  passages  ;  the  one  from  Yattel, 
(II,  c.  4,  §  56,)  which  reads  :  “Whenever  affairs  reach  to  civil  war  the  ties 
of  political  association  are  broken,  or  at  least  suspended,  between  the  sove¬ 
reign  and  his  people.  They  may  be  considered  as  two  distinct  powers;  and, 
since  one  and  the  other  are  independent  of  any  foreign  authority,  no  one  has 
the  right  to  judge  between  them.  Each  of  them  may  be  right.  It  follows, 
then,  that  the  two  parties  may  act  as  having  equal  right.”  The  other 
passage  is  taken  from  the  work  of  a  former  minister,  himself  belonging  to 
the  United  States,  Mr.  Wheaton,  who,  in  his  Elements  of  International  Law, 
c.  I,  p.  35,  (Am.  ed.,  part  1,  p.  32,)  thus  expresses  himself :  “If  the  foreign 
state  would  observe  absolute  neutrality  in  the  face  of  dissensions  which 
disturb  another  state,  it  must  accord  to  both  belligerent  parties  all  the 
rights  which  war  accords  to  public  enemies,  such  as  the  right  of  blockade 
and  the  right  of  intercepting  merchandise  contraband  of  war.” 

As  for  historic  evidence,  it  will  suffice  to  call  to  mind  from  ancient  times 
the  struggle  of  the  United  Provinces  with  Spain,  and  from  modern  date  the 
war  between  the  Hispano-American  colonies  and  the  mother  country  since 
1810,  the  war  of  independence  of  Greece  from  Turkey  since  1821,  &c. 

It  will  doubtless  be  useless  to  recollect,  on  this  occasion,  that  the  princi¬ 
ple  to  see  only  insurgents  in  the  States  of  the  south,  having  neither  sove¬ 
reignty  nor  rights  of  war,  nor  of  peace,  was  put  forward  by  England,  at 
the  breaking  out  of  the  war  of  independence  of  the  Anglo-American  colonies, 
in  the  vindicatory  memoir  published  by  the  British  court  in  1778  in  answer 
to  the  exposition  of  the  motives  for  the  conduct  of  France,  which  had  lately 
signed,  on  the  6th  day  of  February  of  that  year,  a  treaty  with  the  Lnited 
States,  in  which  they  were  regarded  as  an  independent  nation. 

But  the  court  of  Yersailles  set  out  from  other  principles,  which  she 
developed  in  “  Observations  on  the  Vindicatory  Memoir  of  the  Court  of 
London,”  saying,  among  other  things:  “  It  is  sufficient  to  the  justification  of 
his  Majesty  that  the  colonies  had  established  their  independence  not  merely 
by  a  solemn  declaration,  but  also  in  fact,  and  had  maintained  it  against  the. 
efforts  of  the  mother  country.” 

Existing  circumstances  seem  to  present  the  same  characteristics;  and  if 
it  is  desired  to  treat  the  States  of  the  south  as  rebels,  and  accuse  them  of 
felony,  there  might  here  be  cited  as  applicable  to  the  actual  conduct  of  the 
United  States  towards  the  confederates  the  following  remark  of  the  court 
of  Yersailles  :  “In  advancing  this  proposition,  (that  the  possession  of  inde- 


COEEESPOXDEXCE. 


355 


pendence,  of  which  the  French  cabinet  said  the  Americans  were  in  the 
enjoyment  in  1778,  was  a  veritable  felony,)  the  English  minister  had,  with¬ 
out  doubt,  forgotten  the  course  he  had  himself  taken  towards  the  Americans 
from  the  publication  of  the  declaration  of  independence.  It  is  remembered 
that  the  creatures  of  the  court  constantly  called  upon  the  rebellion  ven¬ 
geance  and  destruction.  However,  notwithstanding  all  their  clamors,  the 
English  minister  abstained,  after  the  declaration  of  independence,  from 
prosecuting  the  Americans  as  rebels  ;  he  observed,  and  still  observes 
towards  them,  the  rules  of  war  usual  among  independent  nations.  Ameri¬ 
can  prisoners  have  been  exchanged  through  cartels,”  &c. 

The  rights  of  war  cannot,  then,  in  the  opinion  of  the  King’s  government, 


be  refused  to  the  Confederate  States;  but  I  hasten  to  add  that  the  recogni¬ 
tion  of  these  rights  does  not  import  in  favor  of  such  States  recognition  of 
their  sovereignty. 

“  Foreign  nations,”  says  Mr.  Martens,  (Precis  du  Droit  des  Gens,  1.  VIII, 
c.  8,  §  264,)  “cannot  refuse  to  consider  as  lawful  enemies  those  who  are 
empowered  by  their  actual  government,  whatever  that  may  be.  This  is  not 
recognition  of  its  legitimacy .” 

This  last  recognition  can  only  spring  from  express  and  official  declaration, 
which  no  one  of  the  cabinets  of  Europe  has  thus  far  made. 

Finally,  and  in  the  last  place,  1  permit  myself  here  to  cite  the  example  of 
the  American  privateer  Paul  Jones. 

This  vessel,  considered  as  a  pirate  by  England,  had  captured  two  of  his 
Britannic  Majesty’s  ships  in  October,  1779.  She  took  them  into  the  Texel, 
and  remained  there  more  than  two  months,  notwithstanding  the  representa¬ 
tions  of  Mr.  York,  ambassador  of  Great  Britain  at  the  Hague,  who  considered 
the  asylum  accorded  to  such  privateer  (pirate  as  he  called  it  in  his  memoir 
to  the  states  general  of  21st  March,  1780)  as  directly  contrary  to  treaties, 
and  even  to  the  ordinances  of  the  government  of  the  republic. 

Air.  York  demanded  that  the  English  vessels  should  be  released. 

The  states  general  refused  the  restitution  of  the  prizes. 

The  United  States,  whose  belligerent  rights  were  not  recognized  by  Eng¬ 
land,  enjoyed  at  that  period  the  same  treatment  in  the  ports  of  the  republic 
of  the  United  Provinces  as  the  Netherlands  authorities  have  now  accorded 
to  the  Confederate  States. 

If  the  cabinet  of  the  Hague  cannot,  therefore,  by  force  of  the  preceding, 
class  all  the  vessels  of  the  Confederate  States  armed  for  war  in  the  category 
of  privateers,  much  less  can  it  treat  them  as  pirates,  (as  you  call  them  in 
your  despatch  of  the  12th  of  this  month,)  or  consider  the  Sumter  as  engaged 
in  a fillibustering expedition — “engaged  in  a  piratical  expedition  against  the 
commerce  of  the  United  States” — as  it  reads  in  your  communication  ot  the 
2d  of  September. 

Here  again  historic  antecedents  militate  in  favor  of  the  opinion  of  the 
Netherlands  government. 

Is  there  need,  in  fact,  to  remind  you  that  at  the  outset  of  the  war  of  Amer¬ 
ican  independence,  in  1778,  the  English  refused  to  recognize  American  pri¬ 
vateers  as  lawful  enemies,  under  the  pretence  that  the  letters  ol  marque  which 
they  bore  did  not  emanate  from  the  sovereign,  but  from  revolted  subjects  ? 

But  Great  Britain  soon  had  to  desist  from  this  pretension,  and  to  accord 
international  treatment  to  the  colonists  in  arms  against  the  mother  country. 

The  frankness  with  which  the  King’s  government  has  expressed  its  con¬ 
victions  in  relation  to  the  course  to  be  taken  towards  the  States  ot  the  south 
will,  without  doubt,  be  estimated  at  its  just  value  by  the  government  ot  the 
United  States. 

It  will  perceive  therein  the  well-settled  intention  to  preserve  in  safety  the 
rights  of  neutrality  ;  to  lay  down  for  itself  and  to  follow  a  line  ot  conduct 


356 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


equally  distant  from  feebleness  as  from  too  great  adventurousness,  but  suit¬ 
able  for  maintaining  intact  the  dignity  of  the  state. 

The  government  of  the  Netherlands  desires  to  observe,  on  the  occasion  of 
existing  affairs  in  America,  a  perfect  and  absolute  neutrality,  and  to  abstain 
therefore  from  the  slightest  act  of  partiality. 

According  to  Hubner,  (Saisie  de  Batiments  Neutres,)  “  neutrality  con¬ 
sists  in  absolute  inaction  relative  to  war,  and  in  exact  and  perfect  impar¬ 
tiality  manifested  by  facts  in  regard  to  the  belligerents,  as  far  as  this  impar¬ 
tiality  has  relation  to  the  war,  and  to  the  direct  and  immediate  measures  for 
its  prosecution.” 

“Neutrality,”  says  Azuni,  (Droits  Maritimes,)  “ is  the  continuation  in  a 
state  of  peace  of  a  power  which,  when  war  is  kindled  between  two  or  more 
nations,  absolutely  abstains  from  taking  any  part  in  the  contest.” 

But  if  the  proposition  be  admitted  that  all  the  vessels  of  the  Confederate 
States  armed  for  war  should  be  considered  prima  facie  as  privateers,  would 
there  not  be  a  flagrant  inequality  between  the  treatment  and  the  favors 
accorded  to  vessels  of  war  of  the  United  States  and  the  vessels  of  the  Con¬ 
federate  States,  which  have  not  for  the  moment  a  navy  properly  so  called? 

This  evidently  would  be  giving  proof  of  partiality  incompatible  with  real 
duties  of  neutrality.  The  only  question  is  to  determine  with  exactitude  the 
distinctive  characteristics  between  a  privateer  and  a  ship-of-war,  although 
this  may  be  difficult  of  execution.  Thus  is  ignored  that  which  Count 
Reventlon,  envoy  of  the  King  of  Denmark  at  Madrid,  drew  attention  to  in 
1782,  that  there  exists  among  the  maritime  powers  regulations  or  conven¬ 
tions  between  sovereigns,  which  oblige  them  to  equip  their  vessels  in  a  cer¬ 
tain  manner,  that  they  may  be  held  veritably  armed  for  war. 

You  express  also,  in  your  despatch  of  September  2,  the  hope  that  the 
Netherlands  government  will  do  justice  to  your  reclamation,  grounding 
yourself  on  the  tenor  of  treaties  existing  between  the  Netherlands  and  the 
United  States,  on  the  principles  of  the  law  of  nations,  and,  finally,  upon  the 
assurances  you  have  received  from  the  King’s  government. 

Amidst  all  the  European  powers  there  are  few  who  have  better  defended 
the  rights  of  neutrals,  and  have  suffered  more  in  this  noble  cause  than  Den¬ 
mark  ;  and  one  of  her  greatest  statesmen  of  the  close  of  the  last  century, 
Count  Bernstorff,  has  been  able  to  declare  with  justice,  in  his  memoir  of  July 
28,  1793,  a  document  that  will  long  continue  to  be  celebrated  :  “A  neutral 
power  fulfils  all  its  duties  by  never  depaiting  from  the  most  strict  impar¬ 
tiality,  nor  from  the  avowed  meaning  of  its  treaties.” 

I  have  endeavored,  sir,  to  show,  in  what  precedes,  that  the  government  of 
the  Netherlands  has  fulfilled  conscientiously  its  first  duty,  and  will  adhere 
faithfully  thereto. 

The  cabinet  of  the  Hague  does  not  observe  and  will  not  observe  less 
religiously  the  tenor  of  treaties. 

The  treaty  of  the  19th  of  January,  1839,  and  the  additional  convention  of 
the  26th  of  August,  1852,  oidy  relate  to  commerce  and  navigation;  the  only 
treaties  that  can  be  invoked  in  the  present  case  are  those  of  the  8th  of 
October,  1782. 

I  do  not  think  it  my  duty  to  enter  here  upon  a  discussion  of  principles  on 
the  question  of  deciding  whether  these  treaties  can  still  be  considered  as 
actually  in  force,  and  I  will  not  take  advantage  of  the  circumstance  that  the 
cabinet  of  Washington  has  implicitly  recognized,  by  the  very  reclamation 
which  is  the  object  of  your  despatches,  that  the  treaties  of  1782  cannot  any 
longer  be  invoked  as  the  basis  of  international  relations  between  the  Nether¬ 
lands  and  the  United  States. 

1  will  only  take  the  liberty  of  observing  to  you,  sir,  that  the  execution  of 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


357 


the  stipulations  included  in  those  diplomatic  acts  would  be  far,  in  the  present 
circumstances,  from  being  favorable  to  the  government  of  the  republic. 

In  fact,  we  should,  in  this  case,  admit  to  our  ports  privateers  with  their 
prizes,  which  could  even  be  sold  there  by  virtue  of  article  5  of  the  before- 
cited  convention  of  1782,  on  rescues. 

It  would,  perhaps,  be  objected  that  the  treaty  of  1782,  having  been  con¬ 
cluded  with  the  United  States  of  America,  could  not  be  invoked  by  a  part  of 
the  Union  which  had  seceded  from  the  central  government,  and  I  do  not 
dissent  from  the  opinion  that  this  thorny  question  of  public  law  would  give 
rise,  should  the  case  occur,  to  very  serious  difficulties. 

But  we  cannot  lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  treaty  spoken  of  was  con¬ 
cluded,  even  before  the  recognition  of  the  United  States  by  England  in  1783, 
with  the  oldest  members  of  the  republic,  among  others,  to  wit,  with  Virginia, 
North  Carolina,  South  Carolina,  and  Georgia,  and  that  those  States  actually 
figure  among  the  secessionists. 

In  1782  the  republic  of  North  America  was  only  a  simple  confederation  of 
states,  remaining  sovereign,  united  only  for  common  defence,  (Staatenbund) 
and  it  is  only  since  the  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  of  the  17th  of  Sep¬ 
tember,  1787,  that  the  pact  which  binds  together  the  United  States  received 
the  character  which  is  attributed  to  it  by  Mr.  Wheaton,  also,  (Elements  of 
International  Law,)  of  a  perfect  union  between  all  the  members  as  one  people 
under  one  government,  federal  and  supreme,  (Bundestaat,)  “a  common¬ 
wealth, ’’  according  to  Mr.  Motley  in  his  pamphlet  “Causes  of  the  Civil  War 
in  America,”  p.  71. 

In  view  of  this  fundamental  difference  between  the  present  character  of 
the  government  of  the  United  States  and  that  of  the  party  contracting  the 
treaty  of  1782,  it  would  be  difficult  to  refuse  in  equity  the  privilege  of  the 
secessionist  States  to  avail  themselves  of  it. 

It  will,  therefore,  not  escape  your  penetration  that  it  is  preferable,  as  well 
for  the  Netherlands  as  for  the  cabinet  of  Washington,  to  leave  the  treaty 
above  mentioned  at  rest,  and  that,  in  excluding  privateers  from  its  ports  the 
government  of  the  Netherlands  has  acted  only  in  the  interests  of  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States,  to  which  it  is  bound  by  feelings  of  a  friendship 
which  dates  even  from  the  time  of  the  existence  of  the  republic  of  the  united 
provinces,  and  which  the  King’s  government  will  make  every  effort  to  main¬ 
tain  and  consolidate  more  and  more. 

According  to  the  law  of  nations,  the  cases  in  which  the  neutrality  of  a 
power  is  more  advantageous  to  one  party  than  to  the  other  do  not  affect  or 
impair  it;  it  suffices  that  the  neutrality  be  perfect  and  strictly  observed. 
The  government  of  the  Netherlands  has  not  departed  from  it,  therefore,  in 
denying  admission  to  the  ports  of  his  Majesty’s  territories  to  privateers, 
although  at  first  glance  this  determination  is  unfavorable  to  the  southern 
States. 

The  difficulties  which  have  actually  arisen,  and  which  may  be  renewed 
hereafter,  the  desire  to  avoid  as  much  as  possible  everything  that  could 
compromise  the  good  understanding  between  the  governments  of  the  United 
States  and  the  Netherlands,  impose  on  the  last  the  obligation  to  examine 
with  scrupulous  attention  if  the  maintenance  of  the  general  principles  which 
I  have  had  the  honor  to  develop  might  riot  in  some  particular  cases  impair 
the  attitude  of  neutrality  which  the  cabinet  of  the  Hague  desires  to  observe. 
If,  for  example,  we  had  room  to  believe  that  the  Sumter,  or  any  other  vessel 
of  one  of  the  two  belligerent  parties,  sought  to  make  of  Curayoa,  or  any 
other  port  in  his  Majesty’s  dominions,  the  base  of  operations  against  the 
commerce  of  the  adverse  party,  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  would 
be  the  first  to  perceive  that  such  acts  would  be  a  real  infraction,  not  merely 
of  the  neutrality  we  wish  to  observe,  but  also  of  the  right  of  sovereignty 


358 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


over  the  territorial  seas  of  the  state;  the  duty  of  a  neutral  state  being  to 
take  care  that  vessels  of  the  belligerent  parties  commit  no  acts  of  hostility 
within  the  limits  of  its  territory,  and  do  not  keep  watch  in  the  ports  of  its 
dominion  to  course  from  them  after  vessels  of  the  adverse  party. 

Instructions  on  this  point  will  be  addressed  to  the  governors  of  the  Neth¬ 
erlands  colonial  possessions. 

I  flatter  myself  that  the  preceding  explanations  will  suffice  to  convince 
the  federal  government  of  the  unchangeable  desire  of  that  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands  to  maintain  a  strict  neutrality,  and  will  cause  the  disappearance  of 
the  slightest  trace  of  misunderstanding  between  the  cabinets  of  the  Hague 
and  of  Washington. 

Accept,  sir.  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

DE  ZUYLEN  DE  NIJVELT. 

Mr.  Pike,  Minister  Resident  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  23.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  September  28,  1861. 

Sir  :  By  some  accident  our  foreign  mail  missed  the  steamer.  It  is  only 
just  now  that  I  have  received  your  despatch  of  September  4,  (No.  15.) 
The  proceeding  at  Cura^oa  in  regard  to  the  Sumter  was  so  extraordinary, 
and  so  entirely  contrary  to  what  this  government  had  expected  from  that  of 
Holland,  that  1  lose  no  time  in  instructing  you  to  urge  the  consideration  of 
the  subject  with  as  much  earnestness  as  possible.  I  cannot  believe  that 
that  government  will  hesitate  to  disavow  the  conduct  of  the  authorities  if 
they  have  been  correctly  reported  to  this  department. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWAPD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  SfC.,  SfC.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  24.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  October  4,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  am  just  now  informed  by  a  despatch  from  Henry  Sawyer,  esq.,  our 
consul  at  Paramaribo,  that  on  the  19th  day  of  August  last  the  piratical 
steamer  “Sumter  ”  entered  that  port,  and  was  allowed  by  the  authorities 
there  to  approach  the  town  and  to  purchase  and  receive  coals,  to  stay  during 
her  pleasure,  and  to  retire  unmolested,  all  of  which  was  done  in  opposition  to 
the  remonstrances  of  the  consul. 

You  will  lose  no  time  in  soliciting  the  attention  of  his  Majesty’s  govern¬ 
ment  to  this  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  United  States.  They  will  be  well 
aware  that  it  is  the  second  instance  of  the  same  kind  that  has  occurred  in 
regard  to  the  same  vessel  in  Dutch  colonies  in  the  West  Indies. 

It  is  some  relief  of  the  sense  of  injury  which  we  feel  that  we  do  not  cer¬ 
tainly  know  that  the  authorities  who  have  permitted  these  wrongs  had  re¬ 
ceived  instructions  from  their  home  government  in  regard  to  the  rights  of 
the  United  States  in  the  present  emergency.  We  therefore  hope  for  satis¬ 
factory  explanations.  But,  in  any  case,  you  will  inform  that  government 
that  the  United  States  will  expect  them  to  visit  those  authorities  with  a  cen¬ 
sure  so  unreserved  as  will  prevent  the  repetition  of  such  injuries  hereafter. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


359 


An  early  resolution  of  the  subject  is  imperatively  necessary,  in  order  that 
this  government  may  determine  what  is  required  for  the  protection  of  its 
national  rights  in  the  Dutch  American  forts. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  fye.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  20.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  October  9,  1861. 

Sir:  Since  my  last  (under  date  of  October  2)  I  have  received  a  letter 
from  the  United  States  consul  at  Paramaribo,  of  which  the  following  is  a 
copy: 


“United  States  Consulate, 

“Port  of  Paramaribo ,  September  4,  1861. 

“Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  (but  with  chagrin)  to  inform  you  that  the  rebel 
steamer  Sumter  arrived  at  this  port  on  the  19th  of  August,  and  left  on  the 
31st,  having  been  allowed  to  coal  and  refit.  I  used  my  best  endeavors  to 
prevent  it  without  avail. 

“I  am,  &c., 


“HENRY  SAWYER.” 


Immediately  on  the  receipt  of  it  I  addressed  the  following  note  to  the  min¬ 
ister  of  foreign  affairs. 

“The  Hague,  October  8,  1861. 

“Sir  :  I  have  just  received  a  communication  from  the  American  consul  at 
Paramaribo  under  date  of  the  4th  of  September  last,  which  I  lose  no  time 
in  laying  before  your  excellency. 

“The  consul  states.” 


[See  above.] 

“The  reappearance  of  the  Sumter  in  a  port  of  the  Netherlands,  after  so 
brief  an  interval,  seems  to  disclose  a  deliberate  purpose  on  the  part  of  the 
persons  engaged  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States  government  to  prac¬ 
tice  upon  the  presumed  indifference,  the  expected  favor,  or  the  fancied  weak¬ 
ness  of  the  Dutch  government. 

“During  a  period  of  forty-six  days,  during  which  we  have  heard  of  this 
piratical  vessel  in  the  West  Indies,  it  would  appear  that  she  had  been  twice 
entertained  and  supplied  at  Dutch  ports,  and  spent  eighteen  days  under  their 
shelter. 

“This  can  be  no  accidental  circumstance. 

“In  the  multitude  of  harbors  with  which  the  West  India  seas  abound,  the 
Sumter  has  had  no  occasion  to  confine  her  visits  so  entirely  to  the  ports  of 
one  nation,  especially  one  so  scantily  supplied  with  them  as  Holland.  And 
the  fact  that  she  does  so  is,  in  my  judgment,  not  fairly  susceptible  of  any 
other  interpretation  than  the  one  1  have  given. 

“I  feel  convinced  that  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  will  see  in  this 
repeated  visit  of  the  Sumter  (this  time,  it  appears,  without  any  pretext)  a 
distinct  violation  of  its  neutrality  according  to  its  own  views,  as  laid  down 


360 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


in  your  excellency’s  communication  to  me  of  the  17th  of  September  last, 
and  a  case  which  will  call  for  the  energetic  assertion  of  its  purpose  expressed 
in  the  paper  referred  to,  namely,  not  to  allow  its  ports  to  be  made  the  base 
of  hostile  operations  against  the  United  States.  For  that  the  Sumter  is 
clearly  making  such  use  of  the  Dutch  ports  would  seem  to  admit  of  no 
controversy. 

“In  view  of  the  existing  state  of  the  correspondence  between  the  United 
States  and  the  Netherlands  on  the  general  subject  to  which  this  case  belongs, 
and  of  the  questions  and  relations  involved  therein,  I  shall  be  excused  for 
the  brevity  of  this  communication  upon  a  topic  of  so  much  importance  and 
so  provocative  of  comment. 

“  The  undersigned  avails  himself,”  &c.,  &c. 


I  called  to-day  upon  Baron  Van  Zuylen,  but  he  was  absent,  and  I  shall  not 
therefore  be  able  to  see  him  again  before  the  close  of  the  mail  which  takes 
this.  And  I  do  not  know  that  an  interview  would  in  any  way  affect  the 
existing  state  of  things  or  give  me  any  new  information.  This  government’s 
intentions  are  good;  and  it  desires  to  avoid  all  difficulty  with  the  United 
States,  and  with  everybody  else. 

As  I  stated  in  my  despatch  of  the  25th  September,  I  have  confidence  that 
orders  have  been  given  that  will  impede  the  operations  of  these  vessels  in 
Dutch  ports  hereafter,  and  probably  drive  them  elsewhere. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  25.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  10,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  September  18  (No.  17)  has  been  received. 

The  dela}^  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  in  disposing  of  the 
unpleasant  questions  which  have  arisen  concerning  the  American  pirates  in 
the  colonies  of  that  country  is  a  subject  of  deep  concern;  and  you  are 
instructed,  if  you  find  it  necessary,  to  use  such  urgency  as  may  be  effectual 
to  obtain  the  definitive  decision  of  that  government  thereon  so  early  that  it 
may  be  considered  by  the  President  before  the  meeting  of  Congress  in 
December  next. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extracts.] 

No.  22.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague,  October  12,  1861. 

Sir:  After  reflection,  upon  the  reappearance  of  the  Sumter,  and  her 
prolonged  stay  in  the  port  of  Paramaribo,  [this  time  apparently  without  pre¬ 
text  of  any  kind,)  I  have  felt,  in  view  of  the  position  taken  by  the  Dutch 


CORKESPOXDEXCE. 


361 


government  in  their  communication  to  me  of  the  17th  of  September,  that  we 
were  entitled  to  be. specially  informed  of  the  precise  interpretation  which 
this  government  puts  upon  their  general  declaration  in  the  communication 
referred  to,  namely,  that  it  will  not  permit  its  ports  to  be  made  the  base  of 
hostile  operations  against  the  United  States  commerce. 

I  have  accordingly  made  the  direct  inquiry  of  Baron  Van  Zuylen,  without 
waiting  to  hear  what  you  have  to  say  in  response  to  that  communication. 
In  reply  to  my  inquiry,  Baron  Van  Zuylen  has  informed  me  that,  previous  to 
his  receiving  information  of  the  appearance  of  the  Sumter  at  Paramaribo, 
orders  were  issued  by  the  department  of  the  colonies,  instructing  the  colonial 
authorities  not  to  permit  the  repetition  of  the  visits  of  the  Sumter,  and  other 
vessels  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States;  and  if  they  did  make  their  ap¬ 
pearance  in  Dutch  ports,  to  require  them  to  leave  within  twenty-four  hours, 
under  penalty  of  being  held  to  occupy  a  hostile  attitude  towards  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Netherlands.  And  further,  that  those  authorities  have  also  been 
instructed  to  forbid  the  furnishing  of  such  vessels  with  more  than  twenty- 
four  hours  supply  of  fuel.  These  instructions,  thus  defined,  are  to  the  point. 
Whether  they  have  been  made  general,  and  with  that  disregard  of  distinc¬ 
tions  between  the  rights  of  mere  belligerents  and  those  of  recognized  nation¬ 
alities,  enjoying  pacific  relations  and  acting  under  treaties  of  amity  and 
friendship,  that  mark  the  communication  to  which  I  have  adverted,  I  did  not 
deem  it  pertinent  to  inquire,  nor  do  I  consider  the  inquiry  of  any  value  as 
regards  the  practical  bearings  of  this  case. 

In  compliance  with  my  request,  Baron  Van  Zuylen  has  promised  to  furnish 
me  with  a  copy  of  the  order  referred  to,  which,  when  received,  I  shall  trans¬ 
mit  to  you  without  delay. 

Although  this  order,  as  thus  described  to  me  by  Mr.  Van  Zuylen,  only 
sustains  the  expectations  1  have  expressed  to  you  on  two  former  occasions 
as  to  what  the  action  of  this  government  would  be,  yet,  considering  the  pre¬ 
sent  attitude  of  the  question,  it  is  a  matter  of  some  surprise  to  me  that  a 
copy  of  it  should  not  have  been  tendered  without  waiting  to  have  it  asked  for. 


*1*  *1/  '-l'  'Jr' 

.  /Jx  /J.  'i '  ^ 

Taking  it  to  be  as  herein  described,  I  do  not  see  that  the  position  of  tin’s 
government,  so  far  as  its  action  is  concerned,  is  amenable  to  very  grave 
censure,  whatever  may  be  said  of  its  theoretic  views,  since  the  Dutch  ports 
are  now,  substantially,  shut  to  the  vessels.  The  restriction  in  regard  to 
supplying  fuel,  if  adopted  by  other  powers  holding  colonies  in  the  West 
Indies,  will  put  an  end  to  rebel  operations  by  steam  in  those  seas. 

I  take  some  gratification  in  reflecting  that  my  persistent  appeals  to  the 
government  to  issue  specific  orders,  on  some  ground,  to  their  colonial  autho¬ 
rities,  looking  to  the  exclusion  of  the  piratical  vessels  of  the  seceding  States 
from  the  Dutch  ports,  have  not  been  wholly  unavailing.  That  the  government 
has  argued  against  it,  and  declined  acting  on  any  suggestion  I  could  make, 
is  of  small  consequence,  so  long  as  they  have  found  out  a  way  of  their  own 
of  doing  the  thing  that  was  needed. 

Baron  Van  Zuylen  has  renewedly  expressed  great  regret  that  any  ques¬ 
tions  should  have  arisen  between  the  two  governments. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  BIKE. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


362 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  23.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  October  16,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  3tou  the  reply  of  the  minister  of  foreign 
affairs  to  the  communication  I  addressed  to  him  on  the  8th  instant,  in  regard 
to  the  reappearance  of  the  Sumter  at  Paramaribo.  He  states  therein  the 
character  of  the  orders  which  have  been  sent  to  the  colonial  authorities,  to 
which  I  referred  in  my  last  despatch,  of  October  12,  (No.  22.) 

The  British  minister  here,  Sir  Andrew  Buchanan,  expressed  incredulity 
and  surprise  when  I  informed  him  this  government  had  issued  the  order  in 
question.  He  declared  the  British  government  would  not  do  it,  and  that  the 
United  States  would  not  under  similar  circumstances.  He  said  it  was  giving 
ns  an  advantage,  and  was  not  therefore  neutral  conduct.  He  added  that 
Russia  asked  Sweden  to  close  her  ports  against  both  belligerents  during  the 
Crimean  war,  and  England  would  not  permit  it,  alleging  that  as  Russia  did 
not  want  to  use  them,  and  England  did,  it  gave  the  former  an  advantage  to 
which  that  power  was  not  entitled.  The  British  government  held  that  Sweden, 
as  a  neutral,  had  no  right  to  alter  the  natural  situation  unless  it  operated 
equally. 

You  see  herein  how  thoroughly  English  officials  (and  it  seems  to  me  all 
others)  are  imbued  with  the  idea  that  the  rights  of  a  mere  belligerent  are 
the  same  as  the  rights  of  a  nation,  in  cases  like  the  one  under  consideration. 

I  have  received  to-day  a  letter  from  our  consul  at  Paramaribo,  dated  Sep¬ 
tember  20,  in  which  he  says  the  United  States  steamer  Powhatan  arrived 
there  on  the  14th  in  search  of  the  Sumter,  and  left  for  Brazil  the  same  day; 
also  that  the  Keystone  State  arrived  on  the  18th  on  the  same  errand,  and 
left  on  the  19th  for  the  West  India  islands. 

Your  despatch  of  the  28th  of  September,  acknowledging  receipt  of  mine 
of  the  4th,  has  arrived.  As  you  make  no  mention  of  mine  of  the  lltli,  it 
would  seem  another  mail  has  missed.  I  wrote  our  despatch  agent  at  London 
on  the  subject  several  days  ago. 

He  replies  that  m37  despatch  of  the  4th  of  September  went  on  the  7th,  and 
that  of  the  11th  on  the  14th,  which  was  in  regular  order. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  vour  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  William  IT.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Baron  Van  Zuulen  to  Mr.  Pike. 

«/ 

[Translation.] 

The  Hague,  October  15,  1861. 

Sir:  B3t  3Tour  despatch  of  the  8th  of  this  month  you  have  fixed  1113"  atten¬ 
tion  on  the  arrival  of  the  “Sumter”  at  Paramaribo,  and  37ou  complain  that 
on  this  occasion  the  said  vessel  was  admitted  into  ports  of  the  Netherlands 
during  eighteen  days  out  of  the  forty-six  in  which  the  Sumter  had  shown 
herself  in  the  West  Indian  seas. 

You  suppose  that  this  is  not  a  fortuitous  case,  and  3rou  demand  that  the 
government  of  the  Netherlands,  in  accordance  with  the  intentions  mentioned 
at  the  close  of  my  communication  of  the  17th  September  last,  may  not  per- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


363 


nnt  its  ports  to  serve  as  stations  or  as  base  of  hostile  operations  against  the 
United  States. 

You  have  not  deemed  it  your  duty  to  enter  for  the  moment  on  the  discus¬ 
sion  of  the  arguments  contained  in  my  above-mentioned  communication,  but 
you  say  that  you  wish  to  await  preliminarily  the  reply  of  the  cabinet  at 
Washington. 

I  may,  therefore,  on  my  part,  confine  myself  for  the  moment  to  referring, 
as  to  what  regards  the  admission  in  general  of  the  Sumter  into  the  ports  ot 
the  Netherlands  and  the  character  of  this  vessel,  to  the  arguments  contained 
in  my  communication  of  the  17th  September,  from  which  it  follows,  that  if 
we  do  not  choose  to  consider  prima  facie  all  the  ships  of  the  seceding  States 
as  privateers,  and  if,  in  the  present  case,  the  Sumter  could  not  be,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands,  comprised  among  such, 
entrance  to  the  ports  of  the  Netherlands  cannot  be  prohibited  to  that  vessel 
without  a  departure  from  neutrality  and  from  the  express  terms  of  the  proc¬ 
lamation  of  the  royal  government. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that  the  latter,  in  forbidding  access  to  the 
ports  of  the  Netherlands  to  privateers,  favors  the  United  States  much  more, 
among  others,  than  the  declaration  of  the  10th  of  June  by  the  French  gov¬ 
ernment,  which,  not  permitting  any  vessel-of-war  or  privateer  of  the  one  or 
the  other  of  the  belligerents  to  sojourn  with  prizes  in  the  ports  of  the  empire 
for  longer  time  them  twenty-four  hours,  except  in  case  of  shelter  through 
stress,  ( reldche  forcee ,)  admits  them  without  distinction  when  they  do  not 
bring  prizes  with  them.  But,  without  entering  here  into  useless  develop¬ 
ments,  I  think  1  may  observe  to  you,  sir,  that  the  royal  government,  whilst 
refusing  to  treat  as  pirates,  or  even  to  consider  as  privateers,  all  the  vessels 
of  the  southern  Stales,  has  striven,  as  much  as  the  duties  of  strict  neutrality 
permit,  to  keep  the  Sumter  away  from  our  ports.  When  this  vessel  arrived 
at  Paramaribo,  the  commanders  of  two  ships  of  the  French  imperial  marine, 
which  were  there  at  the  time,  declared  to  the  governor  of  Surinam  that  the 
Sumter  was  a  regular  vessel-of-war  and  not  a  privateer.  The  commander 
of  the  Sumter  exhibited  afterwards,  to  the  same  functionary,  his  commission 
as  commandant  in  a  regular  navy. 

Although  there  was  no  reason,  under  such  circumstances,  to  refuse  to  the 
Sumter  the  enjoyment  of  the  law  of  hospitality  in  all  its  extent,  the  governor, 
before  referred  to,  strove  to  limit  it  as  much  as  possible.  Thus,  although  pit 
coal  is  not  reputed  contraband,  if  not  at  most,  and  within  a  recent  time  only, 
contraband  by  accident,  it  was  not  supplied  to  the  Sumter  except  in  the 
very  restricted  quantity  of  125  tons,  at  the  most  sufficient  for  four  days 
progress. 

However,  the  government  of  the  Netherlands,  wishing  to  give  a  fresh 
proof  of  its  desire  [to  avoid]  all  that  could  give  the  slightest  subject  for 
complaint  to  the  United  States,  has  just  sent  instructions  to  the  colonial 
authorities,  enjoining  them  not  to  admit,  except  in  case  of  shelter  from 
stress,  (reldche  forcee,)  the  vessels-of-war  and  privateers  of  the  two  belli¬ 
gerent  parties,  unless  for  twice  twenty-four  hours,  and  not  to  permit  them, 
when  they  are  steamers,  to  provide  themselves  with  a  quantity  of  coal  more 
than  sufficient  for  a  run  of  twenty-four  hours. 

It  is  needless  to  adcLthat  the  cabinet  of  the  Hague  will  not  depart  from 
the  principles  mentioned  at  the  close  of  my  reply  of  the  1 7th  September,  ot 
which  you  demand  the  application  ;  it  does  know  and  will  know  how  to  act 
in  conformity  with  the  obligations  of  impartiality  and  of  neutrality,  without 
losing  sight  of  the  care  for  its  own  dignity. 

Called  by  the  confidence  of  the  King  to  maintain  that  dignity,  to  defend 
the  rights  of  the  Crown,  and  to  direct  the  relations  of  the  state  with  foreign 
powers,  I  know  not  how  to  conceal  from  you,  sir,  that  certain  expressions  in 


364 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


your  communications  above  mentioned,  of  the  23d  and  25th  September  last, 
have  caused  an  unpleasant  impression  on  the  King’s  government,  and  do  not 
appear  to  me  to  correspond  with  the  manner  in  which  I  have  striven  to  treat 
the  question  now  under  discussion,  or  with  the  desire  which  actuates  the 
government  of  the  Netherlands  to  seek  for  a  solution  perfectly  in  harmony 
with  its  sentiments  of  friendship  towards  the  United  States,  and  with  the 
observance  of  treaties. 

The  feeling  of  distrust  which  seems  to  have  dictated  your  last  despatch 
of  the  8th  of  this  month,  and  which  shows  itself  especially  in  some  entirely 
erroneous  appreciations  of  the  conduct  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands, 
gives  to  the  last,  strong  in  its  good  faith  and  in  its  friendly  intentions,  just 
cause  for  astonishment.  So,  then,  the  cabinet  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to 
form  part  deems  that  it  may  dispense  with  undertaking  a  justification  useless 
to  all  who  examine  impartially  and  without  passion  the  events  which  have 
taken  place. 

The  news  which  has  reached  me  from  the  royal  legations  at  London  and 
at  Washington,  relative  to  the  conduct  of  the  British  government  in  the 
affair  of  the  Sumter,  can  only  corroborate  the  views  developed  in  my  reply 
of  17th  September  last,  and  in  the  present  communication. 

It  results  from  this,  in  effect,  that  not  only  has  the  British  government 
treated  the  Sumter  exactly  as  was  done  at  CuraQoa,  since  that  vessel 
sojourned  six  or  seven  days  at  the  island  of  Trinidad,  where  she  was 
received  amicably  arid  considered  as  a  vessel-of-war,  but  that  the  crown 
lawyers  of  England,  having  been  consulted  on  the  matter,  have  unanimously 
declared  that  the  conduct  of  the  governor  of  that  colony  of  England  had 
been  in  all  points  in  conformity  with  the  Queen’s  proclamation  of  neutrality. 

According  to  them  the  Sumter  was  not  a  privateer  but  a  regular  vessel- 
of  war,  (duly  commissioned,)  belonging  to  a  state  possessing  the  rights  of 
war,  (belligerent  rights.) 

The  Sumter,  then,  has  been  treated  as  a  vessel-of-war  of  the  United  States 
would  have  been,  and  that  vessel  had  the  same  right  to  obtain  supplies  at 
Trinidad  as  any  vessel  belonging  to  the  navy  of  the  northern  States. 

Accept,  sir,  the  fresh  assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

1)E  ZUYLEN  DE  NIJEVELT. 


Mr.  Pike, 

Minister  Resident  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  26.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  October  17,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  25th  of  September,  No.  18,  has  been  received. 
It  is  accompanied  by  a  note  which  was  addressed  to  you  by  Baron  Van 
Zuylen,  on  the  1  7th  day  of  September  last,  on  the  subject  of  the  admission  of 
the  pirate  steamer  Sumter  into  the  port  of  Cura9oa. 

I  reproduce  the  account  of  that  transaction,  which  was  made  by  this 
government  a  subject  of  complaint  to  the  government  of  the  Netherlands. 
The  steamer  Sumter  hove  in  sight  of  the  port  of  Cura^oa  on  the  evening  of 
the  15th  of  July,  and  fired  a  gun  for  the  pilot,  who  immediately  took  to  sea. 
On  his  reaching  the  pirate  vessel  she  hoisted  what  is  called  the  confederate 
flag,  and  the  same  being  unknown  in  that  port,  the  pilot  told  the  captain 
that  he  had  to  report  to  the  governor  before  taking  the  vessel  into  port. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


365 


The  pilot  having*  made  this  report,  the  governor  replied  to  the  captain  that, 
according  to  orders  from  the  supreme  government,  he  could  not  admit  pri¬ 
vateers  into  the  port,  nor  their  prizes,  but  in  the  case  of  distress,  and  there¬ 
fore  the  steamer  could  not  be  admitted  before  her  character  was  perfectly 
known. 

In  reply  to  this  message  the  captain  of  the  steamer  remained  outside  of 
the  port  until  the  next  morning,  when  he  sent  a  despatch  to  the  governor, 
by  an  officer,  stating  that  his  vessel  being  a  duly  commissioned  man-of-war 
of  the  Confederate  States,  he  desired  to  enter  the  port  for  a  few  days.  The 
colonial  court  assembled  the  same  evening,  and,  on  the  ground  of  the  decla¬ 
ration  and  assurance  of  the  privateer  captain  that  the  vessel  is  not  a  priva¬ 
teer,  it  was  decided  that  she  should  enter  the  port,  and  she  entered  accord¬ 
ingly. 

The  consul  of  the  United  States  thereupon  informed  the  governor,  by  a 
note,  that  the  steamer  was,  by  the  laws  and  express  declaration  of  the 
United  States,  a  pirate,  and  that  on  her  way  from  New  Orleans  to  Curagoa 
she  had  taken  and  sent  for  sale  to  the  Spanish  island  of  Cuba  several 
American  merchant  vessels,  and  on  these  grounds  he  asked  upon  what  pre¬ 
text  arid  conditions  the  unlawful  steamer  had  obtained  admittance  into 
Cura9oa. 

The  governor  answered  that,  according  to  the  orders  received  from  the 
supreme  government,  neither  privateers  nor  their  prizes  are  to  be  allowed 
admittance  to  the  ports  or  bays  of  this  colony,  save  only  in  cases  of  dis¬ 
tress.  But  that  this  prohibition  does  not  extend  to  vessels-of-war,  and  that 
the  Sumter  being  a  man-of-war,  according  to  the  rules  of  nations,  could  not 
be  repelled  from  that  port. 

The  piratical  vessel  was  then  supplied,  at  Cura9oa,  with  120  tons  of  coals, 
and  departed  at  her  own  time  and  pleasure.  On  receiving  this  information 
you  were  instructed  to  call  the  attention  of  the  government  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands  to  the  proceeding  of  the  governor  of  Cura^a,  and  to  ask  that  the 
proceedings,  if  correctly  reported,  might  be  disavowed,  and  that  the  gover¬ 
nor  might  be  made  to  feel  the  displeasure  of  his  government. 

You  performed  this  duty  in  due  season  by  addressing  a  proper  note  to 
Baron  Van  Zuylen.  On  the  2d  of  September  he  acknowledged  your  note, 
and  promised  you  an  early  reply  on  the  merits  of  the  subject. 

On  the  11th  of  September  he  communicated  this  reply  to  you  in  the  note 
which  is  now  before  me. 

I  encounter  a  difficulty  in  giving  you  instructions  for  your  reply  to  that 
paper,  because,  first,  since  the  correspondence  was  opened,  a  similar  case 
of  violation  of  our  national  rights  has  occurred  in  the  hospitalities  extended 
to  the  same  piratical  vessel  in  the  Dutch  port  of  Paramaribo,  and  has  been 
made  a  subject  of  similar  complaint,  which,  as  yet,  so  far  as  I  am  advised, 
remains  unanswered;  and,  secondly,  the  note  of  Baron  Van  Zuylen  promises 
that  special  instructions  shall  be  speedily  given  to  the  colonial  authorities 
of  the  Netherlands  in  regard  to  conduct  in  cases  similar  to  those  which  have 
induced  the  existing  complaints.  I  cannot,  of  course,  forsee  how  far  those 
instructions,  yet  unknown  to  me,  may  modify  the  position  assumed  by  the 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  in  the  paper  under  consideration. 

Under  these  circumstances,  I  must  be  content  with  setting  forth,  for  the 
information  of  the  government  of  the  Netherlands,  just  what  the  United 
States  claim  and  expect  in  regard  to  the  matter  i i i  debate. 

They  have  asked  for  an  e: 
sion  of  the  Sumter  by  the 
torily  given;  and  if  not,  then  for  a  disavowal  of  that  officer’s  proceedings, 
attended  by  a  justly  deserved  rebuke. 


1  UR  ell  U  in  L11U  1 1 Ltd  111 

explanation  of  the  case,  presented  by  the  admis- 
3  governor  of  Cura^oa,  if  one  can  be  satisfac- 


366 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


These  demands  have  been  made,  not  from  irritation  or  any  sensi¬ 
bility  of  national  pride,  but  to  make  it  sure  that  henceforth  any  piratical 
vessel  fitted  out  by  or  under  the  agency  of  disloyal  American  citizens,  and 
cruising  in  pursuit  of  merchant  vessels  of  the  United  States,  shall  not  be 
admitted  into  either  the  continental  or  the  colonial  ports  of  the  Netherlands 
under  any  pretext  whatever.  If  that  assurance  cannot  be  obtained  in  some 
way,  we  must  provide  for  the  protection  of  our  rights  in  some  other  way. 
Thus,  the  subject  is  one  of  a  purely  practical  character;  it  neither  requires 
nor  admits  of  debate  or  argument  on  the  part  of  the  United  States.  If  what 
is  thus  desired  shall  be  obtained  by  the  United  States  in  any  way,  they  will 
be  satisfied;  if  it  fails  to  be  obtained  through  the  disinclination  of  the 
government  of  the  Netherlands,  its  proceedings  in  this  respect  will  be 
deemed  unfriendly  and  injurious  to  the  United  States.  The  United  States 
being  thus  disposed  to  treat  the  subject  in  practical  way,  they  are  not 
tenacious  about  the  manner  or  form  in  which  the  due  respect  to  their  rights 
is  manifested  by  the  government  of  the  Netherlands,  and  still  less  about 
the  considerations  or  arguments  upon  which  that  government  regulates  its 
own  conduct  in  the  matter.  They  regard  the  whole  insurrection  in  this 
country  as  ephemeral;  indeed,  they  believe  that  the  attempt  at  piracy  under 
the  name  of  privateering,  made  by  the  insurgents,  lias  already  well  nigh 
failed.  While,  therefore,  they  insist  that  shelter  shall  not  be  afforded  to  the 
pirates  by  nations  in  friendship  with  the  United  States,  they,  at  the  same  time, 
are  not  unwilling  to  avoid  grave  debates  concerning  their  rights  that  might 
survive  the  existing  controversy.  It  remains  only  to  say  in  this  connexion 
that  the  course  which  the  United  States  are  pursuing  in  their  complaints  to 
the  government  of  the  Netherlands  is  not  peculiar,  but  it  is  the  same  which 
has  been  and  which  will  be  pursued  towards  any  other  maritime  power  on 
the  occurrence  of  similar  grievances. 

With  these  remarks,  I  proceed  to  notice  Baron  Yan  Zuylen’s  communica¬ 
tion.  You  will  reply  to  him  that  the  United  States  unreservedly  claim  to 
determine  for  themselves  absolutely  the  character  of  the  Sumter,  she  being 
a  vessel  fitted  out,  owned,  armed,  sailed,  and  directed  by  American  citizens 
who  owe  allegiance  to  the  United  States,  and  who  neither  have  nor  can,  in 
their  piratical  purposes  and  pursuits,  have  or  claim  any  political  authority 
from  any  lawful  source  whatever. 

The  United  States  regard  the  vessel  as  piratical,  and  the  persons  by  whom 
she  is  manned  and  navigated  as  pirates. 

The  United  States,  therefore,  cannot  admit  that  the  Sumter  is  a  ship-of-war 
or  a  privateer,  and  so  entitled  to  any  privileges  whatever,  in  either  of  those 
characters,  in  the  port  of  Cura9oa;  nor  can  they  debate  any  such  subject  with 
the  government  of  the  Netherlands.  This  will  be  all  that  you  will  need  to 
say  in  reply  to  the  whole  of  Baron  Yon  Zuylen’s  note,  except  that  portion  of 
it  which  states,  rather  by  way  of  argument  than  of  assertion,  that  according 
to  the  information  received  from  the  governor  of  Cimu^oa,  (by  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Netherlands,)  the  Sumter  was  actually  in  distress,  and  that 
funtionary,  therefore,  could  not  refuse  to  allow  the  said  vessel  to  enter  the 
port. 

If  this  position  shall  be  actually  assumed  by  the  government  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands,  two  questions  will  arise:  first,  whether  the  fact  that  the  Sumter  was 
in  distress  was  true,  or  a  belief  of  the  truth  of  that  fact  was  the  real  ground 
upon  which  she  was  admitted  by  the  colonial  governor  into  the  port  of  Cu- 
ratjoa;  secondly,  how  far  a  piratical  vessel,  roving  over  the  seas  in  pursuit 
of  peaceful  commercial  vessels  of  the  United  States,  and  fleeing  before  their 
naval  pursuit,  but  falling  into  distress  herself,  is  entitled  to  charity  at  the 
hands  of  a  State,  friendly  to  the  nation  upon  whose  commerce  her  depre¬ 
dations  are  directed. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


367 


It  would  hence  be  idle  to  occupy  ourselves  with  a  discussion  of  these 
questions  until  we  know  that  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  determines 
to  stand  upon  the  main  position  from  which  they  are  derived. 

You  will  therefore  ask  the  Baron  Van  Zuylen  for  an  explicit  statement  on 
this  subject. 

I  cannot  but  hope,  however,  that  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  Tvill 
come  to  the  conclusion  that  it  is  wisest  and  best,  in  view  of  the  relations  of 
the  two  countries,  to  give  such  directions  to  its  agents  as  will  render  fur¬ 
ther  prosecution  of  this  discussion  unnecessary,  while  it  will  prevent  similar 
injuries  in  future  to  our  national  dignity  and  honor.  Should  it  determine 
otherwise,  and  not  be  able  to  place  the  conduct  of  the  governor  general  at 
Curacoa  in  a  better  light  than  it  has  already  done,  it  will  become  necessary 
to  consider  what  means  we  can  take  to  protect,  in  the  ports  of  the  Nether¬ 
lands,  national  rights  which  cannot  be  surrendered  or  compromised. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.,  &c.}  &c. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  24.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  October  23,  18G1. 

Sir:  I  had  the  honor  to  transmit  to  you,  on  the  16th  instant,  the  last  com¬ 
munication  of  this  government  in  respect  to  the  “Sumter”  case,  referring  to 
the  orders  recently  given  to  its  colonial  authorities,  by  which  the  stay  of 
such  vessels  in  Dutch  ports  is  limited  to  24  hours,  and  by  which  they  are 
also  forbidden  to  take  on  board  more  than  24  hours’  supply  of  coal. 

Considering  these  orders  to  be  important,  I  have,  in  the  following  copy  ot 
my  reply  to  the  Dutch  government,  ventured  to  express  a  qualified  satisfac¬ 
tion  at  their  issue.  I  am  in  hopes  you  will  adopt  a  similar  view  of  the  case, 
as  I  conceive  this  government  to  be  well  disposed  towards  the  United  States, 
and  to  consider  that  it  has  strained  a  point  in  our  favor. 

1  doubt  if  England  or  France  will  do  anything  of  the  sort;  but  the  course 
of  Holland  will,  at  least,  furnish  excellent  grounds  for  some  pertinent  ques¬ 
tions  in  case  they  decline. 

I  have  informed  Mr.  Adams,  and  also  Mr.  Dayton  and  Mr.  Scliurz,  of  the 
final  action  of  this  government  in  this  case.  The  copy  of  my  note  follows,  (to 
Baron  Van  Zuylen.) 


“United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  October  22,  1861. 

“Sir:  In  reply  to  your  communication  of  the  15th  instant,  which  I  have 
had  the  honor  to  receive,  I  take  pleasure  in  assuring  your  excellency  that  it 
has  been  far  from  my  purpose  to  say  anything  at  any  time  which  should 
occasion  painful  impressions  on  the  part  ot  his  Majesty’s  government,  or  to 
use  language  marked  by  impatience  or  irritation  at  the  course  ot  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  Netherlands.  But  while  making  this  disclaimer,  I  rankness  com¬ 
pels  me  to  add  that  I  should  not  know  in  what  more  moderate  terms  to 
express  my  sentiments  than  those  I  have  had  the  honor  to  employ  in  address¬ 
ing  his  Majesty’s  government. 

“  I  desire  further  to  say,  in  respect  to  that  part  of  your  excellency’s  com¬ 
munication  which  refers  to  the  recent  orders  given  to  the  Dutch  colonial  au¬ 
thorities  not  to  permit  vessels  engaged  in  pirating  upon  United  States 


368 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


commerce  to  remain  in  their  ports  more  than  24  hours,  and,  when  steamers, 
not  to  be  furnished  with  more  than  24  hours’  supply  of  fuel,  that,  while  1  re¬ 
ceive  the  announcement  with  satisfaction,  it  is  qualified  by  deep  regrets  at  the 
position  his  Majesty’s  government  has  thought  proper  to  take  in  placing  the 
misguided  persons  in  rebellion  against  the  United  States  on  a  footing  of 
equality,  in  a  most  important  respect,  with  the  government  to  which  they 
owe  obedience;  for,  though  the  orders  in  question  deny  shelter  and  aid  to 
pirates,  it  is  impossible  to  regard  with  complacency  the  fact  that  the  exclu¬ 
sion  operates  equally  against  the  vessels  of  the  United  States,  denying  to 
them  that  accustomed  hospitality  ever  accorded  by  friendly  nations. 

“Abstaining,  however,  now  as  heretofore,  from  any  discussion  on  this 
topic  while  awaiting  the  reply  of  my  government  to  your  communication  of 
the  17th  of  September,  I  will  only  add  that  I  feel  assured  the  United  States 
government  will  fully  share  these  regrets,  and  I  can  only  hope  will  not  im¬ 
peach  my  expressions  of  satisfaction  at  the  orders  which  you  inform  me  have 
been  given  in  accordance  with  the  rule  of  action  laid  down  in  that  paper, 
notwithstanding  the  position  falls  so  far  short  of  that  which  the  United 
States  have  confidently  expected  Holland  would  occupy  on  this  question. 

“  I  pray,  &c.,  &c. 

“Baron  Van  Zuylen,  <^c.,  Sfc. 


I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  despatch  of  the  4th  of  October,  (No. 
24,)  relative  to  the  Sumter  at  Paramaribo,  to  which  subject  I  have  already 
given  my  attention. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 


Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seivard  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  28.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  30,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  October  9  (No.  20)  has  been  received.  We  wait 
with  much  interest  the  result  of  your  application  to  the  government  of  the 
Netherlands  for  explanations  of  the  hospitalities  extended  by  its  colonial 
authorities  to  privateers. 

I  am,  sir,  vour  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  fyc.,  §c.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  29.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  2,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  October  12  (No.  22)  has  been  received.  I  learn 
with  much  pleasure  that  you  have  assurances  which,  although  informal, 
lead  you  to  expect  that  a  satisfactory  course  will  be  adopted  by  his  Majesty’s 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


369 


government  in  regard  to  the  exclusion  of  privateers  from  the  ports  of  the 
Netherlands.  Awaiting  with  some  solicitude  more  definite  information, 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  &c.}  &c.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Pike  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  25.]  United  States  Legation, 

The  Hague ,  November  6,  1861. 

Sir:  I  duly  received  your  despatch  (No.  25)  of  the  10th  of  October,  but 
have  nothing  by  the  last  mail.  I  await  your  response  to  the  communication 
of  Mr.  Van  Zuylen  of  the  17th  of  September  last. 

I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  you  the  reply  of  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs 
to  my  note  of  the  22d  of  last  month,  a  copy  of  which  I  forwarded  to  you  in 
my  last. 

^  'T*  *TX  'r  *7^  *r*  'c 

O/  »!/  *1/  >1/  ^ 

'i'  'J'  /j» 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  most  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  S.  PIKE. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Mr.  Van  Zuylen  to  Mr.  Pike. 
[Translation] 


The  Hague,  October  29,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  letter  of  the  2 2d  of  this  month, 
relative  to  the  affair  of  the  “  Sumter,”  and  it  has  been  gratifying  to  me  to 
learn  from  its  tenor  that  you  have  received  with  satisfaction  the  information 
as  to  the  measures  adopted  by  the  government  of  the  Low  Countries  to  pre¬ 
vent  the  return  or  the  prolonged  stay  in  its  ports  of  vessels  which,  like  the 
“  Sumter,”  seemed  to  desire  to  use  them  as  the  base  of  their  operations 
against  the  commerce  of  the  adverse  party. 

You  regret  only  that  the  government  of  the  King  should  have  adopted 
the  same  treatment  towards  the  war  vessels  of  the  seceding  States  and 
those  of  the  United  States. 

Without  entering  here  into  an  extended  discussion,  rendered,  moreover, 
almost  superfluous  by  my  two  preceding  communications,  I  shall  merely 
permit  myself,  sir,  in  referring  to  their  contents,  to  cause  you  to  observe 
that,  agreeably  to  the  doctrine  of  the  best  publicists,  neutrality  imposes 
upon  those  nations  which  desire  to  enjoy  its  benefits  a  complete  abstention 
from  all  that  could  establish  a  difference  of  treatment  between  the  belligerent 
parties,  and  that  this  principle  applies  as  well  to  the  cases  of  civil  war,  or 
even  of  rebellion,  as  to  that  of  an  ordinary  war. 

24 


370 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Your  government  having1  desired  that  measures  should  be  taken  to  prevent 
a  prolonged  stay  in  our  ports  of  the  Sumter,  or  of  other  vessels-of-war  of 
the  seceding  States,  we  have  admitted  the  justice  of  this  claim.  But  these 
measures  could  not  reach  exclusively  one  of  the  two  parties;  they  were  to 
be  general,  and  the  consequence  of  it  is  that  the  new  instructions  given  to 
the  governors  of  Cura9oa  and  of  Surinam  neither  permit  the  vessels-of-war  of 
the  United  States,  except  in  the  case  of  being  compelled  to  put  into  a  port, 
to  sojourn  in  the  ports  of  the  Netherlands,  in  the  West  Indies,  for  a  longer 
time  than  twice  24  hours,  (and  not  for  only  24  hours,  as  you  seem  to  believe.) 

Nevertheless,  the  privateers,  with  or  without  their  prizes,  are,  as  hereto¬ 
fore,  excluded  from  the  Netherland  ports,  and  it  is  by  an  oversight,  which  I 
hasten  to  rectify,  that  the  words  “  and  the  privateers”  have  been  introduced 
into  that  part  of  my  communication  of  the  15th  of  this  month  which  calls 
your  attention  to  the  instructions  transmitted  to  the  colonial  authorities. 

Be  pleased,  sir,  to  accopt  the  renewed  assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

DE  ZUYLEN  DE  NIJEVELT. 


Mr.  Pike, 

Minister  Resident  of  the  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  31.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  11,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  24,  dated  October  23,  has  been  received. 

I  learn  from  it  that  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  has  made  an  order 
which  will,  it  is  hoped,  practically  prevent  the  recurrence  of  such  counte¬ 
nance  and  favor  to  pirates  in  the  ports  of  that  state  as  we  have  heretofore 
complained  of.  You  wfill  express  to  Baron  Zuylen  our  satisfaction  with  this 
proceeding,  viewed  in  that  light,  but  you  will  be  no  less  explicit  in  saying 
that  this  government  by  no  means  assents  to  the  qualifications  affecting 
its  claims  as  a  sovereign  power  upon  the  Netherlands  by  which  the  pro¬ 
ceeding  is  qualified. 

Not  only  are  we  not  seeking  occasions  for  difference  with  any  foreign 
powers,  but  we  are,  on  the  other  hand,  endeavoring  to  preserve  amity  and 
friendship  with  them  all,  in  a  crisis  which  tries  the  magnanimity  of  our 
country.  Influenced  by  these  feelings,  1  can  onty  hope  that  no  new  injury 
or  disrespect  to  our  flag  may  occur  in  the  ports  of  the  Netherlands,  to  bring 
the  action  of  their  government  again  under  review  by  us. 

I  am  directed  by  the  President  to  express  his  approval  of  the  diligence 
and  discretion  you  have  practiced  in  this  important  transaction. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  §c.,  fyc.,  Sfc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  32.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  11,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  October  16  (No.  23)  has  been  received.  It  con- 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


371 


tains  the  reply  of  Mr.  de  Znylen  to  the  note  you  had  addressed  to  him 
on  the  subject  of  the  “  Sumter”  at  Paramaribo. 

In  another  paper  I  have  already  communicated  the  President’s  views  of 
the  disposition  of  that  subject  made  by  the  government  of  the  Netherlands, 
so  that  nothing  remains  to  be  said  on  the  subject  which  you  have  had  oc¬ 
casion  to  discuss  in  the  despatch  now  before  me. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Pike. 

No.  33.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  November  23,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  November  6  (No.  25)  has  just  been  received.  I 
have  already  anticipated  and  disposed  of  the  principal  subject  which  it 
presents. 

Felicitate  the  government  of  the  Netherlands  as  we  felicitate  ourselves  on 
the  renewed  auguries  of  good  and  cordial  relations  between  friends  too  old 
to ’be  alienated  thoughtlessly,  or  from  mere  impatience. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  S.  Pike,  Esq.,  fyc.,  Sfc.,  fyc. 


TURKEY. 


Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  2.] 

Sir: 

* 


[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Constantinople ,  May  29,  1861. 

*  *  *  *  * 


I  had  the  honor,  on  the  25th  instant,  to  receive  your  circular  of  the  20th 
ultimo,  with  its  enclosure,  addressed  to  the  late  minister  resident,  respecting’ 
the  fitting  out  of  privateers  in  Turkey  to  act  against  the  commerce  of  the 
United  States,  and  shall  give  my  faithful  and  vigilant  attention  to  the  orders 
which  it  contains.  The  minister  resident,  on  his  departure,  gave  me  the 
“circulars”  of  the  department,  one  of  February  28,  and  the  other  of  March 
9,  1861,  of  which  he  had  not  either  acknowledged  the  receipt,  nor  made  any 
use  in  carrying  out  the  injunctions  of  the  President.  These,  also,  call  for 
my  immediate  attention,  and  shall  be  faithfully  executed. 

I  would  here  take  occasion  to  add  that  I  am  confident  there  is  not  now 
one  citizen  of  the  United  States  in  this  place  animated  with  sentiments  other 
than  those  of  entire  loyalty  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  of 
devotion  to  the  cause  of  the  Union.  Not  only  from  the  members  of  all  the 
foreign  legations  resident  here,  but  also  from  all  foreigners  in  this  city,  I 
receive  expressions  of  the  most  friendly  nature  in  favor  of  the  American 
Union.  The  unhappy  and  misguided  position  assumed  by  some  of  its 
southern  States  is  deeply  deplored  and  strongly  condemned  by  them,  and  all 
entertain  the  hope  that  a  returning  sense  of  patriotism,  and  a  correct  view 
of  their  own  interests,  will,  before  long,  restore  peace  and  happiness  to  our 
great  and  prosperous  country.  These  are,  also,  the  sentiments  expressed 
by  all  of  the  functionaries  of  the  Sultan’s  government;  and  I  believe  it  will, 
at  any  time,  be  easy  for  the  legation  to  invoke  the  most  friendly  conduct  on 
the  part  of  the  Sublime  Porte  in  behalf  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  of  America. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  P.  BROWN. 


Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Constantinople,  Jane  11,  1861. 

****** 

I  do  not  believe  that  any  agents  of  the  “  Confederate  States  ”  have,  as  yet, 
visited  this  place,  and  should  any  come  here  that  the  Porte  would  admit  or 


374 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


recognize  them.  I  receive  from  H.  H.  Aali  Pacha,  minister  of  foreign  affairs 
and  H.  H.  Mehemed  Kibrish  Pacha,  grand  vizier,  repeated  assurances  of  the 
most  friendly  sentiments  towards  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and 
expressions  of  warm  sympathy  for  the  present  unhappy  state  of  popular 
excitement  in  the  slave  States  of  the  Union. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  P.  BROWN. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  4.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Constantinople ,  June  12,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  your  circular  of  the  6th  of  May, 
regarding  the  duties  of  the  legation  and  consulates  of  the  United  States  in 
Turkey,  with  reference  to  passports  of  American  citizens  and  individuals 
found  negotiating  wdth  this  government  for  purposes  hostile  to  the  Union. 

I  have  sent  a  copy  of  this  circular  to  each  consulate  of  the  United  States 
in  this  empire,  and  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith  copy  of  the  reply  of 
the  present  consul  general  for  Constantinople,  Mr.  David  P.  Heap,  in  whose 
loyalty  to  the  government  of  the  United  States  and  fidelity  to  the  Union  I 
have  every  confidence. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  P.  BROWN. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  United  States  of  America. 


Mr.  Heap  to  Mr.  Brown. 


United  States  Consulate  General, 

Constantinople,  June  12,  1861. 


Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowdedge  the  receipt  of  your  communication 
of  the  1  Oth  instant,  enclosing  a  circular  from  the  honorable  Secretary  of 
State,  dated  May  6,  on  the  subject  of  the  delivery  of  passports  to  citizens  of 
the  United  States. 

I  will  strictly  conform  to  the  instructions  contained  therein,  and  in  no 
case  will  this  consulate  general  grant  its  visa  to  the  passport  of  any  person 
of  whose  loyalty  to  the  Union  it  has  not  the  most  complete  and  satisfactory 
evidence.  This  consulate  general  will  exercise  the  utmost  vigilance  in 
counteracting  the  proceedings  of  any  American  citizen  who,  either  personally 
or  by  agents,  is  found  negotiating  with  the  government  or  individuals  for 
purposes  hostile  to  the  republic. 

I  remain  sir,  with  high  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

D.  P.  HEAP, 

Consul  General. 


John  P.  Brown,  Esq., 

Charge  J  Affaires  of  the  United  States 

of  America,  Constantinople. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


375 


Mr.  Brown  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  10.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Constantinople ,  July  17,  1861. 

gjR.  ******** 

I  have  had  several  conversations  with  T.  H.  Mohammed  Kibrisli  Pacha, 
the  grand  vizier,  or  prime  minister,  and  Aali  Pacha,  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  on  the  subject  of  the  troubles  existing  in  the  United  States;  and  the 
latter  recently  requested  me  to  offer  you  the  strongest  assurances  on  the 
part  of  the  Ottoman  government  of  its  friendly  sympathies,  and  its  hopes 
that  they  may  be  soon  settled  in  such  a  manner  as  will  preserve  the  Union 
intact.  H.  H.  warmly  deprecated  the  principle  of  “  secession,”  advocated  by 
the  southern  States,  as  ruinous  to  all  governments,  and  especially  to  the 
great  American  republic,  the  strength  of  which  so  much  depends  upon  its 
unity.  He  expressed  a  warm  interest  in  the  future  welfare  and  prosperity 
of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  from  which  the  sublime  porte  has 
received  so  many  evidences  of  a  sincere  and  disinterested  friendship. 

The  Sultan  is  acting  with  much  energy  of  character,  and  introducing 
many  salutary  and  greatly  needed  financial  reforms  in  the  government.  His 
activity  and  intelligence  have  already  rendered  him  very  popular  among  his 
subjects,  and  inspire  them  with  great  hopes  for  the  future  of  the  empire. 
There  exists  perfect  harmony  and  co-operation  among  all  his  ministers  and 
other  public  functionaries. 

I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  the  reply  which  I  made  to  H.  H. 
Aali  Pacha,  in  response  to  his  circular  on  the  subject  of  the  accession  of  his 
Majesty,  communicated  to  the  department  in  my  despatch  No.  8;  also  copies 
of  a  letter  from  his  highness,  and  my  reply,  on  his  recent  appointment  to  the 
office  of  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  which  he  has  latterly  filled  only  ad 
interim ,  and  hope  they  will  meet  with  your  approbation. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  P.  BROWN. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  United  States  of  America. 


Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Constantinople ,  June  26,  1861. 

Highness:  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  the  letter  which  your  highness 
was  pleased  to  address  me  yesterday  for  the  purpose  of  informing  me 
officially  of  the  decease  of  his  Imperial  Majesty  Sultan  Abd  ul  Majid,  and 
the  accession  to  the  throne  of  his  brother  and  legitimate  heir,  his  Imperial 
Majesty  Sultan  Abd  ul  Aziz  Khan. 

Deeply  affected  by  the  decease  of  a  sovereign  whose  great  goodness  of 
heart  and  many  generous  impulses  have  engraved  his  memory  in  the  minds 
of  all,  and  which  will  distinguish  the  history  of  his  reign,  it  is  with  much 
pleasure  that  I  convey  to  the  knowledge  of  the  government  of  the  United 
States  of  America  the  great  qualities  of  his  illustrious  successor,  his  Impe¬ 
rial  Majesty  Sultan  Abd  ul  Aziz  Khan. 

The  President  of  the  United  States  will  receive  with  much  interest  the 
assurance  which  your  highness  has  been  pleased  to  convey  to  me  of  the  in 


376 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


tention  of  his  Imperial  Majesty  to  continue  to  cultivate  the  friendly  relations 
which  have  always  so  happily  existed  between  the  government  of  the  United 
States  and  that  of  the  Ottoman  empire — relations  to  which  he  attaches  a 
very  high  appreciation. 

I  avail  myself,  also,  of  the  present  occasion  to  renew  to  your  highness 
assurances  of  my  high  respect  and  very  distinguished  consideration. 

JOHN  P.  BROWN, 

Charge  d' Affaires  ad  int. 


[Translation.] 

No.  5232  |  103.]  Sublime  Porte,  Bureau  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

July  15,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  that  his  excellency  Fuad  Pacha  has 
been  called  to  the  presidency  of  the  supreme  council  of  justice,  confided, 
until  his  return,  to  his  excellency  Kiamil  Pacha,  and  that  my  august  master 
has  deigned  to  appoint  me  his  minister  of  foreign  affairs. 

The  kind  assistance  which  you  have  been  pleased  to  give  me,  during  my 
provisional  direction  of  this  department,  is  an  assurance  that  you  will  con¬ 
tinue  the  same  favor  in  my  endeavors  to  strengthen  still  more  the  relations 
of  friendship  and  harmony  existing  between  our  respective  governments. 

I  take  occasion  to  offer  renewed  assurances  of  my  high  respect  and  per¬ 
fect  consideration. 

AALI. 


Legation  of  the  United  States  of  America, 

Constantinople ,  July  16,  1861. 

Highness  :  I  have  had  the  honor  to  receive  the  letter  you  were  so  good  as 
to  write  me,  on  the  15th  instant,  for  the  purpose  of  informing  me  that  his  ex¬ 
cellency  Fuad  Pacha,  having  been  appointed  president  of  the  supreme  council 
of  justice,  with  which  his  excellency  Kiamil  Pacha  has  been  charged  until 
his  return,  his  Imperial  Majesty  the  Sultan  has  been  graciously  pleased  to 
nominate  you  his  minister  of  foreign  affairs. 

I  thank  your  highness  for  this  communication  and  the  kind  expressions 
which  it  contains,  and  beg  your  highness  to  believe  me  most  desirous  of 
uniting  with  your  highness  in  whatever  may  serve  to  strengthen  the  rela¬ 
tions  of  friendship  and  harmony  so  happily  existing  between  our  respective 
governments,  and  which  owe  so  much  to  the  friendly  sentiments  entertained 
by  your  highness  for  the  United  States. 

1  hasten  also  to  assure  your  highness  of  my  perfect  respect  and  most  dis¬ 
tinguished  consideration. 

JOHN  P.  BROWN. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Morris. 

No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  28,  1861. 

Sir:  The  despatch  of  Mr.  Brown,  secretary  of  legation,  (No.  10,)  dated 
July  H,  has  been  received. 


CORRESPONDENCE, 


377 


It  is  probable  that,  before  receiving  these  instructions,  you  will  have 
already  assumed  the  responsibility  of  asking  an  audience  of  the  new  Sultan, 
and  tendering  him,  on  the  part  of  the  President,  the  proper  congratulations. 
If  this  duty  remains  unperformed,  you  will  take  an  early  occasion  for  it, 
and  will  assure  him  that  this  government  has  learned,  with  sincere  pleasure, 
of  his  accession  to  the  throne  under  felicitous  auspices,  and  of  the  favorable 
impression  which  his  administration  has  made  upon  the  minds  of  the  people 
over  whom  he  presides,  as  well  as  in  foreign  countries.  Assure  him  that 
we  shall  suffer  no  occasion  to  pass  by  on  which  we  can  demonstrate  the 
good  will  and  friendship  of  the  United  States  for  the  government  of  Turkey, 
and  that  we  shall  be  happy  if  circumstances  shall  enable  the  two  coun¬ 
tries  to  modify  their  commercial  arrangements  so  as  to  increase  intercourse 
between  them. 

You  will  receive  herewith  new  letters  of  credence  addressed  to  his  Impe¬ 
rial  Majesty  the  present  Sultan. 

Mr.  Brown’s  account  of  the  favorable  sentiments  of  his  Majesty  towards 
the  United  States  is  especially  gratifying. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

E.  Joy  Morris,  Esq.,  &c.}  fyc.,  fyc.,  Constant  nople. 


' 


SWEDEN 


Mr.  Angel  to  Mr.  Seicard. 

[Extract.] 

No  76.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm ,  May  22,  1861. 

•*L*  ^  ^  'i'  4* 

'T'  'T*  *TX  'J'  'T*'  *T*  'T'  *T* 

The  Swedish  law  is  very  strict  against  the  violation  of  the  rights  of 
neutrals,  and  I  am  assured  that  there  is  no  apprehension  that  any  of  the 
ports  of  this  kingdom  or  of  Norway  will  be  prostituted  to  the  wicked  purpose 
of  fitting  out  privateers. 

^  «J/  \!/  >1/  \*/ 

'f*  /f»  ^ 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  wfith  much  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

B.  F.  ANGEL. 


Mr.  Angel  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


No.  77.] 

Sir: 

*  * 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm,  May  30,  1861. 

^  >1/  vC  \|y  XjC.  \D 

^  ^  ^  ^ 


Herewith  I  beg  permission  to  enclose  a  copy  of  my  note  to  Count  Man- 
derstrom,  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  transmitting  copies  of  the  President's 
proclamations  establishing  a  blockade  of  the  ports  in  the  seceding  States, 
which  I  hope  may  meet  your  approbation. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

BENJ.  F.  ANGEL. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Ac.,  Ac.,  Ac. 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm ,  May  22,  1861. 

Sir:  The  President  of  the  United  States,  in  view  of  the  disturbed  and  un¬ 
happy  condition  of  public  affairs  in  the  southern  portion  of  our  confederacy, 
and  in  the  exercise  of  what  he  regards  as  a  legal  right  and  constitutional 
duty,  has  ordered  and  established  an  effective  blockade  of  the  ports  in  the 
several  States  of  South  Carolina,  Georgia,  Alabama,  Florida,  Mississippi, 
Louisiana,  Texas,  Virginia,  and  North  Carolina. 


380 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  have  the  honor  herewith  to  transmit  to  your  excellency  copies  of  the 
President’s  proclamations  upon  this  subject,  for  the  information  of  his  Majesty’s 
government,  and  I  avail  myself  of  the  occasion  to  offer  to  your  excellency 
the  renewed  assurance  of  my  high  consideration. 

BENJ.  F.  ANGEL. 

His  Excellency  Count  Manderstrom, 

Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs ,  &c .,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Angel  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  19.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm,  June  4,  1861. 

Sir:  In  my  conference  with  Count  Manderstrom  to-day  I  was  informed  that 
no  application  has  been  made  to  the  Swedish  government  on  behalf  of  the 
people  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  for  their  recognition  as  an  inde¬ 
pendent  nation,  and  although  passports  are  not  now  required,  either  in 
Sweden  or  Norwa}7,  I  am  quite  sure  no  agents  are  here  from  the  seceded 
States  for  any  purpose  whatever.  ***** 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  vour  obedient  servant, 

B.  F.  ANGEL. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c .,  &c.,  &c.,  Washington. 


Mr.  Angel  to  Mr.  Seward. 


[Extract.] 

No.  83.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm,  June  10,  1861. 

vU 

'C  /T'  'C  'T*  'Tv 

In  the  contest  in  which  we  are  unfortunately  engaged,  it  is  of  great  im¬ 
portance  to  secure  the  good  opinion  of  mankind,  and  I  am  gratified  in  being 
able  to  inform  you  that,  so  far  as  my  reading  and  observations  extend,  the 
better  informed  European  statesmen  express  the  opinion  that  those  charged 
with  the  administration  of  public  affairs  have  acted  with  the  greatest  mode¬ 
ration  and  forbearance  under  circumstances  which  might  perhaps  have  jus¬ 
tified  retaliatory  measures,  and  in  their  defence  of  constitutional  law  and  an 
organized  government  against  treason  and  revolution  they  will  have  the 
sympathy  an d  best  wishes  of  all  conservatives  on  this  side  the  Atlantic. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 


B.  F.  ANGEL. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


381 


Mr.  Hal  demay l  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  l.J  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm ,  June  14,  1861. 

PI  v**  v y[/ 

STD  •  'P  -T*  /f*  ^  'T  'C 

Yesterday  I  called,  by  appointment,  upon  Count  Manderstrom,  minister  of 
foreign  affairs.  Count  M.,  in  behalf  of  his  government,  welcomed  me  most 
cordially  to  Sweden  as  the  representative  of  the  United  States  of  America. 
Count  Manderstrom  informed  me  of  the  absence  of  his  Majesty  in  Norway, 
whose  return  was  daily  expected,  and  that  an  early  day  would  be  fixed  for 
the  audience  to  present  my  letter  of  credence.  During  the  interview  he  re¬ 
ferred  to  the  condition  of  affairs  in  the  United  States,  and  expressed  himselt 
strongly  in  favor  of  our  government. 

From  the  limited  opportunity  I  have  had  to  judge,  I  have  no  hesitation  in 
the  declaration  of  the  opinion  that  the  S3rmpathy  of  the  entire  north  ot 
Europe  is  almost  unanimously  in  favor  of  the  existing  government  of  the 
United  States.  The  emigration  from  this  part  of  Europe  having  been  to 
the  northern  or  free  States,  they  speak  as  if  they  would  like  to  give  active 
aid  to  their  friends,  relatives,  and  countrymen. 

^  V*.  >2/  \|y 

^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^ 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  S.  HALDEMAN. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  &c.,  &c.,  &c. 


Mr.  Haldeman  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  3.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Stockholm,  July  4,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor,  in  reply  to  your  circular  of  May  20,  to  inform  you 
that  I  am  almost  confident  no  effort  or  attempt  to  purchase  articles  contraband 
of  war,  or  to  fit  out  vessels  in  any  port  of  Sweden,  under  letters  of  marque, 
need  be  apprehended.  The  public  voice  of  this  nation,  represented  by  a  free 
press,  is  clearly  and  emphatically  in  favor  of  my  government,  and  view 
secession  as  a  causeless  rebellion,  which  ought  to  be  suppressed  by  the 
strong  arm  of  military  law.  Should,  contrary  to  my  expectation,  efforts  be 
made  by  mercenary  men  to  give  in  any  manner  assistance  to  the  rebels,  I 
have  no  doubt  I  shall  receive  information  of  the  fact  in  time  to  call  the  at¬ 
tention  of  his  Majesty’s  government  to  the  subject. 

Frequently  application  has  been  made  to  me  by  honorable  discharged 
officers  of  the  army  of  Sweden  to  know  if  their  services  would  be  accepted 
by  my  government,  and  on  what  conditions.  I  have  replied  that  I  have  no 


382 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


instructions  on  that  subject,  and  can  make  no  promises  or  arrangements  on 
the  part  of  my  government.  The  question  is  asked  if  their  passage-money 
would  be  paid  on  their  arrival  in  America  and  entering  the  service.  Two 

of  these  officers  are  eminent  military  engineers. 

*  *  #  #  #  #  # 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  S.  HALDEMAN. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  fyc.,  §c ,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman. 

No.  2.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  8,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  June  14  (No.  1)  has  just  been  received.  Your  safe 
arrival  at  your  destination  is  a  source  of  satisfaction,  and  the  information 
you  give  concerning  the  tone  and  temper  of  public  opinion  in  the  north  of 
Europe,  with  regard  to  the  present  embarrassment  in  our  domestic  affairs, 
is  especially  gratifying. 

I  am,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Jacob  S.  Haldeman,  Esq.,  §c.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman. 

No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  25,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  June  26  (No.  2)  has  been  received.  So  much  of  it 
as  relates  to  the  preservation  of  the  archives,  and  other  matters  of  subordi¬ 
nate  interest,  will  be  noticed  in  a  distinct  paper. 

The  President  is  gratified  by  the  account  of  the  friendly  reception  you 
have  received  from  his  Majesty,  and  directs  me  to  congratulate  you  upon  the 
good  auspices  under  which  your  mission  is  commenced.  You  will  lose  no 
good  opportunity  for  assuring  the  government  of  Sweden  that  the  United 
States  entertain  the  highest  consideration  and  cherish  the  best  wishes  for 
his  Majesty  and  the  Swedish  people. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Jacob  S.  Haldeman,  Esq., 

fyc.,  SfC.,  &fc.,  Stockholm. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


383 


Mr.  Haldeman  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extracts.] 


No.  5.]  United  States  Legation, 

Stockholm,  July  28,  1861. 

Sir:  Since  I  last  wrote  quite  a  change  is  visible  in  diplomatic  circles  in 
regard  to  American  affairs.  They  now  speak  out  openly  that  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  the  United  States  should  act  vigorously  and  efficiently;  enforce  the 
laws  by  the  strong  arm  of  military  power;  that  the  rebellion  should  be 
annihilated  by  force  and  not  by  compromise;  that  is  a  mistaken  policy  to 
suppose  that  delay  and  the  holding  out  of  the  olive  branch  ever  fitted  rebels 
for  grace,  or  brought  them  to  a  sense  of  their  guilt. 

On  the  29th  of  July  the  King  joins  his  fleet  in  the  Baltic,  and  will  visit 
the  coasts  of  Norway  and  Denmark;  he  will  be  absent  some  four  or  five 
weeks.  Her  Majesty  at  the  same  time  visits  her  parents,  the  King  and 
Queen  of  Holland.  Count  Edward  Piper,  who  has  been  appointed  minister 
to  the  United  States,  is  one  of  the  first  noblemen  in  Sweden,  with  a  thorough 
English  education  and  manners,  and  whose  appointment  was  intended  as  a 
compliment  to  the  United  States.  Count  Manderstrom  informed  me  at  our 
last  conference  that  a  large  Swedish  frigate  would  be  sent  to  the  American 
waters  to  protect  Swedish  interests  against  privateers  if  it  should  be  neces¬ 
sary.  From  all  quarters  the  firm  and  decided  course  of  the  administration 
is  spoken  of  with  respect  and  esteem;  no  one  now  seems  to  doubt  of  the 
speedy  triumph  of  the  government. 

I  remain,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

J.  S.  HALDEMAN. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  §c.,  §c.,  fyc.,  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman. 

No  4."|  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  30,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  July  4,  1861,  (No.  3,)  has  been  received,  and  it  is 
entirely  satisfactory  in  regard  to  your  own  activity  in  your  mission,  and  the 
favorable  dispositions  of  the  enlightened  government  to  which  you  are  ac¬ 
credited. 

We  notice  with  much  pleasure  the  willingness  of  military  gentlemen  of 
talent  and  experience  in  Sweden,  as  in  other  nations,  to  enter  the  army  of 
the  United  States.  It  is  a  proof  of  a  sympathy  with  our  great  cause  of  in¬ 
estimable  value.  We  wish,  indeed,  that  we  were  able  to  engage  to  accept 
all  who  should  come.  But  this  is  impossible,  for  the  reason  that  they  are 
coming  in  unknown  numbers  from  various  European  states,  while  at  the 
same  time  a  long  repressed  martial  spirit  has  broken  out  among  our  own 
countrymen,  which  gives  us  more  candidates  than  we  have  places  for. 

Gradually  we  have  taken  into  the  service  several  able  and  spirited  military 


384 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


men  from  Prussia,  Italy,  France,  and  Hungary.  I  shall  be  happy  to  recom¬ 
mend  any  the  government  of  Sweden  may  desire  us  to  accept. 

*  *  * 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Jacob  S.  Haldeman,  Esq., 

$c.,  §c.,  §c.,  Stockholm. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman. 

No.  5.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  19,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  (No.  4)  of  July  22  has  been  received. 

The  announcement  which  you  were  requested  to  make,  by  his  excellency 
Count  Manderstrom,  of  the  appointment  of  Count  Piper  as  his  Swedish  and 
Norwegian  Majesty’s  minister  resident  in  the  United  States,  has  been  re¬ 
ceived  with  much  satisfaction.  The  filling  of  the  mission  in  so  acceptable  a 
manner  at  this  period  is  regarded  by  the  President  as  an  earnest  of  his  Ma¬ 
jesty’s  friendly  feelings  towards  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and 
you  are  directed  to  assure  Count  Manderstrom  that  the  new  minister  will 
receive  at  our  hands  a  most  cordial  welcome,  and  that  no  opportunity  will 
be  neglected  of  strengthening  the  ties  of  amity  between  the  government  of 
his  Majesty  and  that  of  the  United  States. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Jacob  S.  Haldeman,  Esq., 

fye.f  fyc.,  fyc.,  Stockholm. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman. 

[Extract.  ] 

No.  6.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  August  19,  1861. 

Sir  : 

*  ***** 

*  ***** 

The  information  which  you  give  concerning  the  temper  and  feeling  of  the 
government  and  people  of  Sweden  is  very  gratifying. 

This  government  will  find  a  sincere  pleasure  in  doing  all  that  shall  be  in 
its  power  to  favor  the  safety  and  freedom  of  the  commerce  of  Sweden  in  the 
ports  of  the  United  States  not  closed  by  the  blockade. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Jacob  S.  Haldeman,  Esq., 

Sfc.,  fye.,  fyc.,  Stockholm. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


385 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Haldeman. 


[Extract.] 


No.  7.] 


Department  of  State, 

Washington,  September  7,  1861. 


Sir  : 


* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

* 

* 


* 

# 


* 

* 

* 


Your  communications  concerning  internal  questions  in  Sweden  are  appre¬ 
ciated,  and  we  hope  that  the  succession  to  the  throne  may  be  settled  in  a 
manner  satisfactory  to  the  government,  and  conducive  to  the  welfare  of  the 
enlightened  people  whom  it  so  deeply  concerns. 

We  have  already  forgotten  the  reverse  of  our  arms  at  Bull  Run,  which 
affected  you  so  deeply,  and  the  prospect  of  the  restoration  of  the  authority 
of  the  Union  is  entirely  satisfactory.  Our  volunteer  army  will,  I  have  no 
doubt,  vindicate  its  character  and  win  back  the  confidence  of  the  country 
and  its  friends. 

1  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 


WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 


Jacob  S.  Haldeman,  Esq., 

<^c.,  SfC.,  Sfc.,  Stockholm. 


25 


■ 


PORTUGAL. 


Mr.  Morgan  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

So.  66.]  United  States  Legation, 

Lisbon,  April  6,  1861. 

gIR  .  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  * 

During  the  evening  his  Majesty  inquired  with  interest  as  to  the  condition 
of  affairs  in  the  United  States,  but  when  I  assured  him,  as  I  had  before  done 
on  a  similar  occasion,  that  the  Union  would  be  preserved,  his  manner  was 
more  expressive  of  doubt  than  belief,  though  he  replied  that  he  hoped  I  was 
not  mistaken,  as  it  would  be  a  great  pity  to  see  so  fine  a  country  ruined,  and 
I  regret  to  say  that  my  colleagues,  and  European  politicians  generally, 
regard  the  disruption  of  the  States  as  an  established  fact. 

»i/  mMf  V/  O/  >1/  ■v'x 

^  /'Jx 

With  high  respect,  I  have  the  honor  to  be  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  W.  MORGAN. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Morgan  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  6L]  United  States  Legation, 

Lisbon,  May  29,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  a  copy  of  my  note  to  the  government  of 
H.  M.  F.  Majesty  on  the  subject  of  privateers. 

I  have  notified  our  consular  agents  of  the  importance  of  vigilance. 

Would  it  not  be  good  policy  to  take  into  regular  commission  a  considera¬ 
ble  number  of  our  clipper  ships,  till  our  navy  can  be  placed  on  a  basis  com¬ 
mensurate  with  the  crisis  ? 

The  telegraph  announces  that  the  President  has  notified  the  foreign  powers 
that  he  will  discontinue  diplomatic  relations  with  any  nation  that  recognizes 
the  so-called  Confederate  States. 

I  trust  that  it  is  true,  for  such  a  policy  will  produce  good  results,  and  is 
not  less  wise  than  it  is  dignified. 

If  we  come  out  of  this  contest  triumphant,  and  the  Union  be  preserved, 
our  nation  will  be  more  powerful  and  more  glorious,  more  loved  and  more 
feared,  than  ever  before  in  our  history  as  a  nation. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

GEORGE  W.  MORGAN. 

Hon.  Wm.  n.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


388 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


United  States  Legation, 

Lisbon,  May  27,  1861. 

Sir:  A  combination  of  individuals  in  certain  of  the  southern  States  of  the 
United  States  have  raised  the  standard  of  insurrection,  and  under  the  pre 
tended  authority  of  the  self-styled  Confederate  States  of  America  have  threat¬ 
ened  to  grant  pretended  letters  of  marque  for  the  purpose  of  committing 
assaults  on  the  lives,  vessels,  and  property  of  good  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  lawfully  engaged  in  commerce  on  the  high  seas,  and  in  the  waters 
of  the  United  States.  And  in  consequence  thereof,  on  the  1 9th  da}7  of  April, 
1861,  and  the  eighty-fifth  year  of  the  independence  of  the  United  States,  the 
President,  by  formal  proclamation,  declared  that  if  any  person,  under  the 
pretended  authority  of  the  said  so-called  but  unrecognized  Confederate  States, 
or  under  any  other  pretence,  shall  molest  a  vessel  of  the  United  States,  or 
the  persons  or  cargo  on  board  of  her,  that  such  person  will  be  held  amenable 
to  the  laws  of  the  United  States  for  the  punishment  of  piracy. 

In  the  name,  therefore,  of  the  government  of  the  United  States,  I  have 
the  honor  to  request  that  the  government  of  H.  M.  F.  Majesty  may  cause 
such  measures  to  be  taken  as  will  effectually  prevent  any  vessel  from  being 
prepared  in  any  of  his  Majesty’s  ports  for  the  aforesaid  piratical  purposes. 

Under  the  conviction  that  reliable  information  as  to  said  insurrection  will 
be  gratifying  to  his  Majesty’s  government,  I  briefly  submit  the  following 
statement: 

1.  The  government  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  has  been  neither 
recognized  by  any  sovereign  state,  nor  has  it  been  acknowledged  by  the 
people  it  professes  to  represent.  But,  on  the  contrary,  the  combination  of 
individuals  who  have  usurped  the  title  of  a  government  refuse  to  submit 
their  constitution  to  the  ratification  or  rejection  of  the  citizens  of  said  States. 

2.  The  insurrectionists  are  wanting  in  the  great  elements  necessary  to 
successful  war.  Their  ports  are  strictly  blockaded  ;  their  supplies  are  cut 
off,  by  land  and  by  sea,  and  within  themselves  they  are  destitute  of  the 
means  of  carrying  on  a  prolonged  struggle. 

8.  That  while  it  may  be  difficult  to  predict  the  length  of  time  which  may 
be  required  to  suppress  the  insurrection,  yet  in  the  future  nothing  can  be 
more  certain  than  are  the  vindication  of  the  national  flag,  and  the  perfect 
restoration  of  order  and  prosperity  under  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States. 

It  affords  me  great  pleasure  to  renew  to  your  excellency  the  assurance  of 
my  most  distinguished  consideration. 

GEORGE  W.  MORGAN. 

His  Excellency  M.  Antonio  Jose  d’ Avila, 

Secretary  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs,  &c. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


389 


Mr.  Harvey  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  6.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  July  25,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  just  had  my  first  interview  with  Mr.  d? Avila,  the  minister  of 
foreign  affairs,  since  being  presented  to  the  King,  and  desire  to  report  its 
purpose  and  character.  While  no  instructions  have  reached  me  in  regard 
to  the  desired  action  of  this  government  concerning  privateers,  I  considered 
it  proper,  in  view  of  the  facilities  offered  by  the  ports  of  Portugal  and  her 
colonies  to  prizes,  to  call  the  attention  of  the  proper  authorities  to  it  at  the 
earliest  opportunity  when  I  was  in  an  official  position  to  do  so  with  effect. 

On  the  very  day  of  my  arrival  here,  and  when  I  did  not  anticipate  the 
painful  delays  and  difficulties  which  have  since  occurred,  I  told  General 
Morgan  of  my  intention  to  ask  for  a  proclamation  excluding  privateers,  as 
soon  as  I  was  presented.  He  addressed  a  note  to  the  foreign  office  on  the 
2d  instant,  in  which  the  general  question  was  discussed  at  much  length. 
And  although  he  afterwards  called  several  times  upon  Mr.  d’ Avila,  no 
answer  was  obtained  before  his  departure  yesterday. 

These  were  the  circumstances  under  which  I  felt  it  necessary  to  go  for¬ 
ward  and  to  ask  for  some  decisive  action.  I  told  Mr.  d’ Avila  frankly  that  I 
did  not  desire  to  signalize  my  advent  here  by  any  protracted  correspondence, 
and  least  of  all  by  a  controversy,  and  that  the  sentiments  which  I  had  ex¬ 
pressed  at  my  audience  of  presentation  were  those  which  really  animated 
me.  I  informed  him  that  a  condition  of  affairs  existed  in  the  United  States 
which  required  me  to  claim  an  early  and  positive  expression  of  views  by  the 
Portuguese  government  on  this  subject,  and  therefore  he  must  excuse  my 
seeming  urgency.  He  inquired  if  I  adopted  the  note  which  General  Morgan 
had  addressed  to  him.  I  answered  that  I  accepted  the  principle,  but  was 
willing  to  waive  a  correspondence,  if  the  object  could  be  accomplished  by  a 
direct  and  candid  interchange  of  opinions  orally,  when  there  would  be  less 
difficulty  in  understanding  each  other,  and  a  readier  mode  of  reaching  a  con¬ 
clusion  promptly.  He  concurred  in  this  suggestion,  and  said  it  reflected  his 
own  sincere  dispositions. 

I  then  told  him  that  a  proclamation  forbidding  the  ports  of  Portugal  and 
her  colonies  to  privateers  and  their  prizes,  in  explicit  terms,  would  be  satis¬ 
factory,  and  argued  that,  as  Portugal  had  acquiesced  in  the  treaty  of  Paris 
of  1856,  there  ought  to  be  no  difficulty  in  making  this  declaration.  In  order 
to  strengthen  the  reason,  I  suggested  that  the  proclamation  might  be  made 
broad  and  general,  because  I  most  desired  the  assertion  of  a  practical  prin¬ 
ciple  which  would  cover  the  case  completely.  He  seemed  to  assent  to  the 
idea,  and  remarked  that  it  was  disembarrassed  materially  by  the  fact  that  the 
government  of  the  United  States  had  discountenanced  the  issuing  of  letters 
of  marque.  I  told  him  that  the  government  had  not  only  done  that,  but  that 
it  deprecated  and  denounced  the  system,  which  certain  insurrectionary  and 
tumultuous  assemblages  of  people  had  proclaimed  with  a  professed  authority. 

In  order  that  no  misapprehension  might  occur,  I  notified  Mr.  d’Avila  that 
a  proclamation  or  declaration  which,  in  doubtful  phrases  or  by  implication, 
recognized  the  existence  of  any  pretended  organization  in  the  United  States, 
independent  of  the  government  which  accredited  me,  and  which  alone  has 
power  to  make  treaties  and  conduct  diplomatic  intercourse,  would  be  regarded 
as  a  most  unfriendly  act  by  the  President. 

After  again  urging  upon  him  reasons  for  an  early  decision,  he  explained 
that  the  cortes  were  now  in  session  night  and  day,  but  expected  to  adjourn 
soon,  when  he  would  lay  the  matter  before  the  King’s  council,  and  obtain 
their  opinion,  which  he  thought  would  conform  to  my  request.  I  asked  him 


390 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


to  name  a  convenient  day  when  an  answer  might  be  expected.  He  declined 
fixing  a  time  certain,  but  expressed  the  belief  that  by  the  middle  of  next 
week  the  council  could  be  convened,  and  this  subject  should  have  precedence 
over  all  others. 

In  proposing  a  proclamation  such  as  I  have  suggested,  vessels-of-war  and 
their  prizes  would  be  allowed  entry  to  the  ports  of  Portugal,  which  the  Eng¬ 
lish  and  French  governments  have  expressly  excluded,  putting  them  on  the 
same  footing  with  privateers.  As  I  have  acted  upon  my  own  motion  in  this 
matter,  I  submit  it  to  your  approbation. 

With  high  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  E.  HARVEY. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Harvey  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  7.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon,  July  28,  1861. 

Sir:  Since  my  despatch  (No.  6)  of  the  25th  instant,  information  reached 

vL*  xl*  V*.*  Oy  xL  xl/  xi/  xJ/  xLz  xJz  xL  xLy 

JJ|0  'T' 

Vz  xJ/  x|z  xlz  xlz  xL  xl/  xlz  xlz  xL  xLz  xLz  vl> 

'r*  ^  '■Jx  /Jx  /Jx  /fx  >fx  *Js. 

that  plans  were  concerted  by  the  parties  who  had  recently  applied  for  the 
privilege  of  fitting  out  a  privateer,  and  others,  to  accept  letters  of  marque 
from  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  and  to  use  some  of  the  remote  islands 
of  Portugal  as  places  of  rendezvous  for  outfit  and  for  the  disposal  of  any 
prizes  that  might  be  taken. 

In  view  of  the  facilities  offered  for  these  nefarious  enterprises  in  the 
Azores,  Madeira,  Cape  de  Verd,  and  other  islands,  as  well  as  in  the  small  Indian 
possessions  of  that  kingdom,  I  felt  it  proper  to  address  the  note,  of  which  a 
copy  is  enclosed,  to  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  yesterday,  as  a  means  of 
inducing  him  to  take  immediate  and  decisive  action  on  the  subject.  These 
facts  will  serve  to  explain  the  seemingly  urgent  tone  of  my  note,  which  I 
thought  demanded  by  the  necessity  of  the  case. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  E.  HARVEY. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


Legation  of  the  United  States,  July  27,  1861. 

The  undersigned  presents  his  compliments  to  his  excellency  M.  d’Avila, 
minister  of  foreign  affairs  of  his  most  faithful  Majesty,  and  begs  leave  to 
repeat  in  this  form,  for  the  convenience  of  a  more  precise  understanding, 
the  substance  of  the  ideas  which  he  had  the  honor  to  express  in  his  inter¬ 
view  with  his  excellency  on  the  25th  instant. 

Portugal  has  acceded  fully  to  the  anti-privateering  doctrine  established 
by  the  declaration  of  the  congress  of  Paris  of  April,  1856,  to  which  the 
assent  of  the  United  States  has  recently  been  given. 

Opposed  to  the  principle  and  practice  of  privateering,  Portugal  ought  not 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


391 


to  hesitate,  as  it  appears  to  the  undersigned,  to  declare  by  general  procla¬ 
mation,  as  a  general  principle  and  rule,  that  her  ports  are  no  longer  open  to 
privateers  or  their  prizes. 

This  is  the  extent  of  the  present  request  of  the  undersigned.  He  does 
not  ask  that  Portugal  shall  make  any  particular  application  of  the  general 
rule  to  the  peculiar  and  unhappy  state  of  things  now  existing  in  the  United 
States,  nor  that  any  unnecessary  notice  or  cognizance  should  be  taken  of 
the  disturbed  condition  of  domestic  affairs  in  the  United  States.  Indeed, 
the  government  of  the  United  States  would  not  view  with  satisfaction  any 
such  superfluous  and  unnecessary  expression  of  views  or  sentiments  by 
any  foreign  power  in  regard  to  a  state  of  things  purely  domestic,  local,  and 
temporary,  to  which  a  satisfactory  termination  will  soon  be  placed  by  the 
ample  power  of  the  United  States  government.  On  the  contrary,  as  the 
undersigned  took  occasion  to  assure  his  excellency  M.  d’Avila,  at  the  personal 
interview  referred  to,  any  declaration  which  recognized  the  existence,  even 
by  implication,  of  a  pretended  organization  in  the  United  States,  independent 
of  the  government,  which  alone  has  the  power  to  make  treaties,  and  to 
conduct  diplomatic  intercourse,  and  the  authority  of  which  cannot  be  ques¬ 
tioned,  would  be  considered  as  a  most  unfriendly  act. 

As  little  as  the  government  of  the  United  States  would  pretend  to  inter¬ 
fere  in  any  analogous  question  that  might  possibly  arise  between  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  his  most  faithful  Majesty  and  any  of  the  provinces  of  his  king¬ 
dom,  can  the  United  States  be  disposed  to  view  with  satisfaction  any  such 
expression  as  that  suggested  on  the  part  of  his  or  any  foreign  government. 
At  the  same  time  it  is  manifest  that  questions  of  the  most  embarrassing 
and  even  dangerous  character  are,  at  any  moment,  liable  to  occur,  if  unlaw¬ 
ful  and  piratical  privateers,  with  unlawful  prizes,  should  make  their  appear¬ 
ance  in  the  waters  of  Portugal  or  her  colonies,  and  it  is  with  a  view  to  the 
amicable  anticipation  of  such  possible  contingencies  that  the  undersigned 
has  requested,  and  now  repeats  the  request,  that  the  government  of  his  most 
faithful  Majesty  should  simply  carry  out,  to  its  natural  and  necessary  conse¬ 
quence  and  application,  the  principle  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  above 
referred  to,  as  having  been  fully  acceded  to  by  the  enlightened  government 
of  his  most  faithful  Majesty. 

The  undersigned  begs  to  add  the  expression  of  his  hopes  that  in  advance 
of  the  issue  of  the  proclamation,  which,  under  these  circumstances,  he  be¬ 
lieves  and  expects  will  be  issued  at  the  earliest  convenient  day  by  his  most 
faithful  Majesty,  the  undersigned  may  be  favored  with  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  the  proposed  terms  of  the  same,  in  order  that,  by  means  of  frank 
interchange  of  views,  there  may  be  the  more  perfect  certainty  of  such  a 
friendly  and  reciprocally  satisfactory  harmony  of  views  between  the  two 
governments  as  shall  correspond  to  the  sentiments  already  fully  expressed 
by  the  undersigned  on  behalf  of  the  President  of  the  United  States,  and 
most  satisfactorily  and  cordially  responded  to  by  his  most  faithful  Majesty. 

In  conclusion,  the  undersigned  respectfully  asks  that  this  subject,  in  view 
of  its  importance  and  possible  complications,  may  be  brought  to  the  early 
notice  of  his  most  faithful  Majest}7,  so  as  to  preclude  the  happening  of 
events  which  might  involve  grave  consequences,  to  which  the  interests  and 
good  will  of  both  nations  are  alike  opposed.  He  appreciates  the  reasons 
which  have  been  assigned  for  the  delay,  since  the  subject  was  first  presented 
by  his  immediate  predecessor,  in  a  note  to  his  excellency  M.  d’Avila,  dated 
on  the  2d  of  July;  but  urgent  considerations  have  recently  arisen  which 
require  the  undersigned  to  submit  this  request  on  behalf  of  the  government 
of  the  United  States. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  the  assurances 
of  his  most  distinguished  consideration. 

JAMES  E.  HARVEY. 


392 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Harvey  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  8.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon ,  July  30,  1861. 

Sir:  I  received  a  note  from  Mr.  d’Avila,  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs, 
yesterday,  requesting  an  interview  with  me  at  4  o’clock.  I  called  at  the 
foreign  office  at  the  appointed  hour,  and  he  immediately  presented  the 
original  draft,  in  Portuguese,  of  a  proposed  proclamation,  of  which  I  enclose 
a  translated  copy,  marked  No.  2.  After  hearing  it  read  and  reduced  into 
English,  I  expressed  my  acceptance  of  its  general  scope  and  spirit,  but  ex¬ 
pressly  demurred  to  the  declaration  at  the  end  of  article  2,  by  which  armed 
vessels  are  placed  in  the  same  category  as  privateers  in  regard  to  prizes. 
Although  I  knew  it  was  of  no  practical  importance  to  the  United  States 
under  present  circumstances,  it  was  easy  to  foresee  that  in  the  event  of  war 
with  England  or  France,  and  with  their  ability7"  to  blockade  our  ports,  that 
prizes  taken  by  American  ships-of-war  would  be  thus  excluded  from  Portugal 
and  her  possessions.  Hence  my  objection  to  that  point.  I  told  Mr.  d’Avila 
that  it  went  beyond  the  treaty  of  Paris,  upon  which  the  proclamation  was 
professedly  predicated,  and  that  it  did  what  I  had  sought  to  avoid  by  intro¬ 
ducing  indirectly  our  domestic  question.  He  said  his  object  was  to  exclude 
the  prizes  of  vessels-of-war  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States,  in  case  they 
should  create  a  navy,  and  thus  to  guard  against  any  future  complication. 
To  this  suggestion  I  answered  that,  as  we  were  not  dealing  with  supposi¬ 
titious  or  hypothetical  cases,  it  was  necessary  to  adhere  to  the  practical 
question,  and,  as  we  had  stated,  on  the  basis  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  in 
regard  to  privateering  and  his  own  preamble  set  out  with  that  statement, 
the  introduction  of  any  extraneous  matter  would  be  not  only  irrelevant,  but 
likely  to  defeat  the  object  which  both  sides  alike  professed  to  have  in  view. 
He.  did  not  respond  to  this  suggestion,  but  agreed  to  let  me  take  the  rough 
draft,  in  order  that  I  might  submit  whatever  observations  might  occur  to 
me  as  appropriate. 

I  prepared  the  accompanying  note  (marked  No.  1)  this  morning,  and  sent 
it  to  Mr.  d’Avila  an  hour  ago. 

There  are  two  councils  before  which  such  questions  are  considered;  first, 
the  council  of  ministers  or  the  cabinet;  and  second,  the  council  of  state, 
which  is  a  larger  body,  and  includes  the  cabinet  and  other  distinguished 
persons.  I  understood  Mr.  d’A  vila  to  say  that  the  draft  of  the  proclamation 
had  been  laid  before  the  former,  and  approved  by  them,  and  that  my  pro¬ 
posed  amendment  must,  therefore,  be  presented  at  another  meeting.  I 
have  reason  to  believe  that  my  note  of  Saturday  precipitated  this  action, 
which,  in  a  country  where  diplomacy  is  proverbially  slow,  exhibits  unusual 
promptitude. 

I  am,  sir,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JAMES  E.  HARVEY. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington  City. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


393 


No.  1, 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

July  30,  1861. 

The  undersigned  presents  his  most  respectful  compliments  to  his  excel¬ 
lency  M.  d’Avila.  and  referring  to  the  conversation  he  had  the  honor  to 
have  with  his  excellency  yesterday,  and  repeating  his  thanks  for  his  excel¬ 
lency’s  courtesy  in  showing  him  the  draft  of  the  proclamation  contemplated 
by  the  government  of  his  most  faithful  Majesty,  as  a  proper  consequence 
and  application  of  the  principles  adopted  by  Portugal  by  her  adhesion  to 
the  declaration  of  Paris  of  April,  1856,  he  begs  leave  to  submit  the  follow¬ 
ing  observations  to  his  excellency’s  enlightened  consideration: 

The  declaration  of  Paris  abolished  privateering.  It  would  seem  to  follow 
as  a  necessary  logical  consequence  to  all  powers  acceding  to  the  same,  that 
under  no  circumstances  (except  those  of  force,  majeure,  and  brief,  indispensa¬ 
ble  hospitality,  in  view  of  the  laws  of  humanity)  ought  their  ports  to  be 
open  to  the  admission  of  privateers  or  their  prizes.  So  far,  then,  as  regards 
privateers  and  their  prizes,  the  undersigned  sees  nothing  but  what  he  must 
approve  in  the  draft  of  the  proclamation  referred  to. 

But  the  declaration  of  Paris  did  not  go  further,  and  change  the  established 
maritime  law  of  the  world  in  regard  to  the  legality  of  the  capture  of  prizes 
by  the  regular  men-of-war  of  the  naval  forces  whose  fleets  roam  the  ocean. 
Such  prizes  have  alwa}7s  been  deemed  legitimate,  and  still  remain  so.  It 
is  no  application  of  the  principles  of  the  declaration  of  Paris  to  exclude 
such  regular  and  lawful  prizes,  made  by  the  regular  vessels  of  one  nation, 
from  the  ports  of  a  friendly  nation.  In  this  respect  the  words,  “on  por 
embarcacoes  annadas ,”  at  the  end  of  article  2,  appear  not  only  to  go  much 
beyond  the  principles  of  the  declaration  referred  to,  but  even  to  be  most  un¬ 
necessarily  introduced  into  a  proclamation  avowedly  designed  for  the  mere 
execution  and  practical  application  of  the  principles  of  that  declaration.  To 
introduce  them  at  this  moment  in  such  a  proclamation  would  be  deemed  by 
the  government  of  the  United  States  not  only  as  a  gratuitous  deviation 
from  the  terms  of  the  preamble  to  the  same  proclamation,  but  as  a  deviation 
prompted  by  a  reason  which  would  seem  to  involve  an  indirect,  if  not  a 
direct,  reference  to  the  present  rebellion  of  a  small  portion  of  the  United 
States.  It  would  be  understood  as  placing  on  the  same  level  the  regular 
men-of-war  of  the  United  States  and  the  privateers  of  the  States  now  in 
rebellion,  so  far  as  regards  the  prizes  made  by  them.  It  is  only  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  principle  involved,  to  the  apparent  inconsistency  between  the 
preamble  and  the  sequence,  and  to  the  misconstruction  to  which  it  would 
be  consequently  liable,  that  the  undersigned  indulges  the  hope  and  expecta¬ 
tion  that  the  few  words  above  cited  may  be  omitted  from  the  proposed 
proclamation,  and  takes  occasion  to  say  that  in  that  form  it  will  be  perfectly 
acceptable  to  the  government  of  the  United  States,  and  will  add  another  to 
the  many  links  of  friendly  relation  and  intercourse  which  already  bind 
closely  together  the  two  countries. 

It  is  only  proper  for  the  undersigned  to  notify  his  excellency  M.  d’Avila 
that  information  has  been  communicated  to  the  government  of  the  United 
States  which  authorizes  the  belief  that  some  of  the  remote  islands  and  colo¬ 
nies  of  this  kingdom  are  proposed  to  be  used  by  designing  and  reckless 
persons  to  engage  in  the  nefarious  enterprises  referred  to  by  the  equipment 
of  privateers,  or  the  sale  of  prizes,  if  any  should  be  taken.  He  knows  per¬ 
fectly  well,  in  advance  of  any  assurance,  that  such  lawless  undertakings 
would  be  sternly  deprecated  by  the  government  of  his  most  faithful 
Majesty;  but  his  excellency  cannot  fail  to  discover  in  this  fact  an  urgent 


394  CORRESPONDENCE. 

reason  why  a  proclamation  of  such  sentiments,  and  in  the  unobjectionable 
form  suggested,  should  be  immediately  made.  It  is  with  this  view,  and  to 
provide  against  the  contingency  of  future,  and  perhaps  of  impending,  diffi¬ 
culty,  that  the  undersigned  has  brought  the  subject  thus  promptly  to  the 
notice  of  his  excellency,  and  with  the  most  friendly  spirit  and  purpose. 

The  undersigned  begs  leave  to  return  the  rough  draft  of  the  proclama¬ 
tion,  and  to  repeat  his  assurances  of  respect  and  distinguished  considera¬ 
tion. 

JAMES  E.  HARVEY. 


No.  2. 

[Translation  of  proposed  proclamation.] 

It  being  convenient,  under  existing  circumstances,  to  carry  out  the  execu¬ 
tion  of  the  principles  contained  in  the  declaration  of  Paris  of  16th  April, 
1856,  made  by  the  representatives  of  the  signing  parties  to  the  treaty  of 
peace  of  30th  March  of  the  same  year,  to  which  my  government  hath  ad¬ 
hered,  I  am  pleased  hereby,  having  heard  the  council  of  ministers,  to  decree 
the  following : 

Article  1. 

It  is  prohibited  to  Portuguese  subjects  and  foreigners  to  equip  in  the  ports 
and  waters  of  this  kingdom,  not  only  on  the  continent  and  adjacent  islands, 
but  also  in  the  ultramarine  provinces,  vessels  destined  for  privateering. 

Article  2. 

In  the  same  points  cited  in  the  preceding  article  it  is  equally  prohibited 
the  entry  of  privateers  and  prizes  made  by  them  or  by  armed  vessels. 

§°.  All  cases  of  force,  ( majeure ,)  wherein,  according  to  the  rights  of 
nations,  hospitality  becomes  indispensable,  are  excepted  from  this  clause 
without,  however,  allowing,  under  any  form,  that  the  sale  of  objects  arising 
from  prizes  shall  take  place. 

Let  the  ministers  and  secretaries  of  state  of  all  the  departments  under¬ 
stand  these  presents,  and  cause  the  same  to  be  executed. 

Palace  of  Necessidados,  July  29,  1861. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Harvey. 

No.  2.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  July  30,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatches  No.  1,  of  June  30,  and  No.  2,  of  July  7,  have  been 
received,  and  are  under  the  consideration  of  the  President. 

Mr.  Morgan’s  despatch  No.  70,  of  the  date  of  July  5,  has  been  received. 
I  am  instructed  by  the  President  to  say  that  Mr.  Morgan’s  proceeding  in  ad¬ 
dressing  the  Portuguese  government  on  the  subject  of  allowing  the  fitting 
out  or  harboring  of  privateers  to  prey  upon  the  commerce  of  the  United 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


395 


States  is  approved,  as  well  as  the  general  tenor  of  his  communication  on 
that  occasion. 

The  President  cannot  for  a  moment  allow  the  belief  that  Portugal  would 
be  the  only  or  even  the  first  power  to  permit  proceedings  so  injurious  to  the 
United  States  as  a  license  or  shelter  granted  to  pirates  engaged  in  preying 
on  their  commerce  would  be.  Nevertheless,  we  shall  look  not  without  some 
solicitude  for  the  result  of  the  matter  thus  initiated  by  Mr.  Morgan. 

Please  assure  him,  if  he  is  yet  remaining  in  Lisbon,  of  the  entire  satisfac¬ 
tion  with  which  his  conduct  in  the  mission,  so  far  as  it  has  been  reported  to 
me,  is  regarded  by  the  government. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  II.  SEWARD. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq.,  fyc.,  §c.,  fyc.,  Lisbon. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Harvey. 

No.  5.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  IT,  1861. 

Sir  :  Your  despatch  No.  T,  dated  July  28,  has  been  received.  It  is  accom¬ 
panied  by  a  copy  of  a  note  which  you  on  the  2Tth  of  July  addressed  to  M. 
d’Avila,  minister  for  foreign  affairs  in  the  government  of  Portugal,  on  the 
subject  of  privateering  by  or  in  the  service  of  the  insurgents  of  the  United 
States.  Your  proceeding  in  this  respect  seems  to  have  been  eminently  judi¬ 
cious,  and  the  note  itself,  I  think,  very  well  and  properly  expressed. 

It  is  hoped  that  you  will  before  this  time  have  received  such  a  satisfactory 
reply  as  our  good  relations  and  treaties  with  the  government  of  Portugal 
authorize  us  to  expect. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq.,  fyc.,  8fc.,  fyc.,  Lisbon. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Harvey. 

No.  T.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  4,  under  the  date  of  July  20,  has  been  received. 
Your  address  to  his  Majesty  was  appropriate,  and  even  happy.  His  reply 
is  very  gratifying  to  this  government. 

We  trust  that  you  ma3T  find  it  easy  to  keep  the  relations  between  the  two 
countries  on  a  basis  of  mutual  and  cordial  friendship. 

I  am,  sir,  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  n.  SEWARD. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq.,  Sfc.,  fyc.,  4*c.,  Lisbon. 


396 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Harvey. 

No.  8.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  24,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  No.  8,  dated  July  30,  has  been  received,  and  I  have 
the  pleasure  of  informing  you  that  the  President  entirely  approves  of  your 
diligent  and  judicious  action  concerning  the  proposed  proclamation  of  the 
government  of  Portugal.  We  look  with  much  confidence  for  good  results 
from  it. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

James  E.  Harvey,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyo.,  <^c.,  Lisbon. 


Mr.  Harvey  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  13.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Lisbon ,  August  25,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith  the  copy  of  a  note  from  the 
foreign  office,  covering  the  copy  of  a  proclamation  in  regard  to  privateers 
and  their  prizes,  (Nos.  1  and  2,)  in  the  form  finally  adopted  by  the  council 
of  state.  This  decree  was  published  in  the  official  paper  (Diario  de  Lisboa) 
on  the  23d  instant,  a  copy  of  which  has  already  been  transmitted  to  the 
department. 

By  referring  to  my  despatch  No.  8,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  preamble  of 
the  proclamation  has  been  modified,  so  as  to  escape  the  logical  incon¬ 
sistencies  which  I  then  pointed  out,  in  the  hope  of  inducing  the  omission  of 
certain  phrases,  which  would  have  rendered  it  more  acceptable.  I  have  the 
best  reason  to  know  that  the  council  of  ministers,  or  cabinet,  were  not  only 
well  disposed  to  adopt  my  proposed  amendment,  but  that  they  submitted  the 
proclamation  with  the  revision. 

When  this  fact  became  known  to  me,  I  urged,  with  every  influence  and 
persuasion  at  my  command,  an  immediate  decision,  so  as  to  insure  the  pro¬ 
mulgation  before  any  interrupting  cause  or  accident  could  intervene.  But 
the  King  went  away  for  a  short  time,  and  a  council  of  state,  to  which  the 
proposed  action  of  the  council  of  ministers  on  important  questions  is  pre^ 
sented  for  examination,  could  not  be  convened.  In  the  meantime  intelligence 
from  the  United  States  of  an  eventful  character  affected  opinion  here,  and 
gave  increased  weight  to  the  objections  which  had  been  urged  by  the  British 
minister  and  others  against  the  form  of  proclamation  which  I  had  requested. 
A  council  of  state  was  summoned  upon  the  return  of  the  King,  and  the 
result  of  their  deliberations  is  to  be  found  in  the  documents  enclosed  in  this 
despatch. 

While  I  should  have  been  greatly  gratified  had  my  amendment  been 
accepted,  I  have  the  satisfaction  to  know  that  it  did  not  fail  from  any  want 
of  zeal,  energy,  or  effort  on  my  part,  and  that  the  proclamation  as  it  now 
stands  is  mainly  predicated  upon  your  policy,  in  execution  of  the  principle 
of  the  treaty  of  Paris,  and  is  not  open  to  the  objections  urged  against  those 
issued  by  England,  France,  or  Spain. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  very  respectfully, 

JAMES  E.  HARYEY. 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


397 


Mr.  cV Avila  to  Mr.  Harvey. 

[Translation.] 

# 

No.  1.]  Department  of  State  for  Foreign  Affairs, 

August  22,  1861. 

The  councillor  of  state,  Antonio  Jose  d’ Avila,  presents  his  most  attentive 
compliments  to  Mr.  James  E.  Harvey,  and  has  the  honor  to  remit  him  the 
enclosed  copy  of  the  decree  of  the  29th  of  July  last,  published  according  to 
the  last  form  given  thereto,  after  hearing  the  council  of  state. 


[Translation.] 


No.  2.]  Ministry  of  Foreign  Affairs. 

It  being  proper,  in  view  of  the  circumstances  at  present  existing  in  regard 
to  the  United  States  of  America,  to  carry  into  effect  the  principles  established 
in  the  declaration  of  Paris  of  April  16,  1856,  made  by  the  representatives  of 
the  powers  that  signed  the  treaty  of  peace  of  the  30th  of  March  of  that  year, 
to  which  declaration  my  government  acceded,  and  likewise,  for  the  same  reason, 
to  adopt  other  measures  which  I  deem  opportune,  I  have  been  pleased,  after 
hearing  the  council  of  state,  to  decree  as  follows: 

Article  1. 

In  all  the  ports  and  waters  of  this  kingdom,  as  well  on  the  continent  and 
in  the  adjacent  islands  as  in  the  ultramarine  provinces,  Portuguese  subjects 
and  foreigners  are  prohibited  from  fitting  out  vessels  destined  for  privateering. 

Article  2. 

In  the  same  ports  and  waters  referred  to  in  the  preceding  article  is,  in 
like  manner,  prohibited  the  entrance  of  privateers  and  of  the  prizes  made 
by  privateers,  or  by  armed  vessels. 

§The  cases  of  overruling  necessity,  ( forga  maior,)  in  which,  according  to 
the  law  of  nations,  hospitality  is  indispensable,  are  excepted  from  this  regu¬ 
lation,  without  permission,  however,  being  allowed,  in  any  manner,  for  the 
sale  of  any  objects  proceeding  from  prizes. 

The  ministers  and  secretaries  of  state  in  all  the  departments  will  thus 
understand,  and  cause  it  to  be  executed. 

Palace  of  Necessidades,  July  29,  1861. 

KING. 

Marquez  de  Loul£. 

Alberto  Antonio  de  Moraes  Carvalho. 

Visconde  de  Sa  da  Bandeira. 

Carlos  Bento  da  Silva. 

Thiago  Augusto  Yelloso  de  Horta. 

Antonio  Josk  d’ Avila. 


I 


. 


■ 


» 


PERU. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Robinson. 

No-.  2.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  November  12,  1861. 

Sir:  You  are  appointed  a  minister  to  represent  the  United  States  near  the 
republic  of  Peru. 

This  appointment  is  an  overture  by  this  government,  under  the  present 
administration,  to  renew  the  friendly  relations  with  Peru,  which  had  been 
suspended,  on  the  motion  of  this  government,  when  administered  by  the  last 
President,  James  Buchanan. 

The  Peruvian  government  may  naturally  ask  and  be  entitled  to  an  expla¬ 
nation  of  this  change  of  position  on  the  part  of  the  United  States. 

It  is  confessed  to  be  unfortunate  when  any  government  has  occasion  to 
reverse  its  policy  in  any  material  respect,  especially  a  policy  of  friendship 
or  of  hostility  towards  foreign  nations.  Inconstancy  is  always  liable  to  be 
mistaken  for  inconsistency,  and  inconsistency  is  too  often  the  result  of 
caprice. 

Moreover,  when  we  come  to  explain  such  a  change  in  any  case,  however 
necessary  it  may  have  been,  we  shall  still  find  it  necessary  to  explain  in  such 
a  manner  as  shall  not  cause  it  to  be  understood  that  the  reconsideration  is 
due  to  personal  or  partisan  considerations  indulged  by  the  government. 

Keeping  these  points  in  view,  you  will  be  at  liberty  to  say,  in  your  com¬ 
munications  with  the  representatives  and  statesmen  of  the  country  to  which 
you  are  accredited,  that  the  President  of  the  United  States  entertains  the 
opinions  that  the  several  states  founded  on  the  American  continent  have 
common  interests  arising  out  of  their  neighborhood  to  each  other,  their 
common  attitudes  towards  states  in  the  eastern  hemisphere,  and  the  similarity 
of  their  commercial,  social,  and  political  institutions;  that  owing  to  the 
inexperience  of  mankind  in  the  conduct  of  republican  representative  insti¬ 
tutions,  and  the  incompleteness  of  assimilation  in  the  population  of  these 
American  states,  there  is  always  too  much  danger  of  faction  at  home,  while 
faction  at  home  inevitably  tends  to  invite  intrigues  and  intervention  from 
abroad  for  the  overthrow  of  the  American  powers  with  hopes  of  recon¬ 
quest  from  Europe.  For  these  reasons,  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
without  at  all  reflecting  upon  the  sentiments  or  the  action  of  his  predecessor, 
determined,  on  assuming  the  administration  of  the  government,  to  resist 
rather  than  to  yield  to  influences  which  might  tend  to  introduce  anarchy  into 
any  one  of  the  American  states,  or  produce  alienation  and  war  between  them. 

In  reviewing  the  causes  assigned  by  his  predecessor  for  withdrawing  our 
representative  from  Peru,  he  came  to  the  conclusion  that,  although  serious 
differences  had  arisen  between  the  two  countries,  yet  that  there  was  no  impera¬ 
tive  necessity  resulting  from  those  differences  for  a  declaration  of  war  against 
Peru.  Not  being  able  to  recommend  to  Congress  the  adoption  of  hostilities 
against  Peru,  it  seemed  to  result  that  the  differences  between  the  two  states 
might  be  accommodated  by  the  two  powers  in  case  of  renewed  and  pacific 
relations. 


400 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


The  questions  in  difference  between  the  two  countries  will  be  a  subject  of 
special  instruction  in  a  distinct  paper.  I  confine  myself  in  this  despatch  to 
instructions  for  your  conduct  in  presenting  yourself  at  Lima. 

You  wTill  assure  the  government  of  Peru  that  the  United  States  are  sin¬ 
cere  and  earnest  in  their  friendship  and  affection  for  that  republic;  that  the}7- 
desire  its  prosperity  and  advancement,  equally  for  the  welfare  of  its  own 
people  and  the  best  interests  of  civilization;  and  that  consistently  with  that 
regard  for  own  rights,  which  every  nation  must  always  cherish  which  is 
really  independent,  the  United  States  will  always  be  found  to  manifest  the 
most  cordial  sympathies  with  the  republic  of  Peru,  and  with  other  sister 
states  on  the  American  continent. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD 

Christopher  Robixson,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


GUATEMALA. 


Mr.  Crosby  to  Mr.  Seward. 
[Extract.] 


Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Guatemala,  June  1,  1861. 

xV.  ^  ^  >L»  vl/  >1» 

^  ^  ^  <1*  ^ 

His  excellency  the  President  of  Guatemala  and  his  ministers,  as  well  as 
the  other  officers  and  gentlemen  of  the  government  and  country,  all  express 
their  great  friendship  for  the  government  and  people  of  the  United  States, 
and  especially  their  fervent  hope  that  the  present  administration  might 
successfully  suppress  the  disturbances  in  portions  of  the  southern  States, 
and  maintain  the  Union  in  all  its  integrity. 

vL»  v{^ 

^  ^  /N  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  ^  m 


No.  1.] 

Sir:  * 


I  have  the  honor,  &c., 

Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State. 


E.  0.  CROSBY. 


26 


- 


% 

. 


. 


NICARAGUA. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Dickinson. 


No.  2.J  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  June  5,  1861. 

Sir:  The  Spanish  American  states  are  important  characters  in  the  inter¬ 
esting  drama  of  advancing  civilization.  They  occupy  a  virgin  domain 
equal  to  about  onweighth  of  the  habitable  part  of  the  globe.  Its  fountains 
of  wealth  are  inexhaustible.  Its  position  secures  it  nearly  equal  advantages 
of  trade  and  intercourse  with  the  listless  nations  of  the  east,  and  with  the 
vigorous  nations  of  the  west.  Its  ports,  as  well  as  all  its  transit  routes  are 
essential  features  in  the  commerce  of  the  world.  With  the  advantages  of 
youth  and  singular  exemption  from  foreign  oppression  or  aggression  which 
the  Spanish  American  states  have  enjoyed  for  near  half  a  century,  it  might 
have  been  expected  that  they  would  within  that  period  have  become  strong 
and  influential  nations.  The  fact,  thus  far,  is  otherwise.  They  are  just 
strong  enough  to  maintain  independence  without  securing  necessary  fear 
or  respect.  With  much  versatility,  respectable  talent,  high  cultivation,  and 
very  generous  aspirations,  they  are  generally  changeful  and  capricious. 
The  very  mention  of  a  South  American  state  suggests  always  the  same 
inquiry:  why  a  people  so  free,  so  virtuous,  so  educated,  and  so  emulous,  are 
not  more  secure,  fortunate,  and  happy.  Everybody  wishes  the  Spanish 
American  states  well,  and  yet  everybody  loses  patience  with  them  for  not 
being  wiser,  more  constant,  and  more  stable.  Such,  I  imagine,  is  the  temper 
in  which  eveiy  foreign  state  finds  itself  when  it  proposes  to  consider  its 
relations  to  those  republics,  and  especially  the  republics  of  Central  America. 
I  know,  at  least,  that  this  has  always  been  the  temper  of  our  best  states¬ 
men  in  regard  to  Nicaragua.  Union,  or,  at  least,  practical  alliance  with 
Nicaragua  has  always  been  felt  by  them  as  a  necessity  for  the  United 
States,  and  yet  no  one  ever  deems  it  prudent  to  counsel  the  establishment 
of  such  intimate  relations.  Possessing  one  of  the  continental  transits  most 
interesting  to  the  United  States,  Nicaragua  is  at  once  jealous  of  foreign 
intervention  to  render  it  available,  and  incompetent  to  open  and  maintain 
it  herself.  But  Nicaragua,  like  the  other  Spanish  American  states,  has  far 
better  excuses  for  its  shortcomings  than  it  generally  has  credit  for.  That 
state  became  precociously  mature,  and  it  adopted  our  model  of  government 
with  little  of  that  preliminary  popular  education  and  discipline  which 
seem  necessary  to  enable  any  people  to  administer,  maintain,  and  preserve 
free  republican  institutions.  The  policy  pursued  by  foreign  nations  towards 
Nicaragua  has  not  been  liberal  or  generous.  Great  Britain,  in  her  wars 
with  Spain,  early  secured  a  position  in  the  state  very  detrimental  to  its  in¬ 
dependence,  and  used  it  to  maintain  the  Indians  in  a  condition  of  defiance 
against  the  creole  population,  while  it  did  nothing,  at  least  nothing 
effectually,  to  civilize  the  tribes  whom  it  had  taken  under  its  protection. 
Unwilling  to  lend  the  aid  necessary  to  the  improvement  of  the  country, 
Great  Britain  used  its  protectorate  there  to  counteract  domestic  efforts  and 
intervention  from  this  government  to  make  that  improvement  which  was 
necessary  for  the  interest  of  Nicaragua  herself,  and  hardly  less  necessary 


404 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


for  all  the  western  nations.  Our  own  government  has  been  scarcely  less 
capricious,  at  one  time  seeming  to  court  the  most  intimate  alliance,  at 
another  treating  the  new  republic  with  neglect  and  indifference,  and  at 
another  indirectly,  if  not  directly,  consenting  to  the  conquest  and  desolation 
of  the  country  by  our  own  citizens  for  the  purpose  of  re-establishing  the  in¬ 
stitution  of  slavery,  which  it  had  wisely  rejected.  It  may  be  doubtful 
whether  Nicaragua  has  not  until  this  day  been  a  loser  instead  of  a  gainer 
by  her  propinquity  to,  and  intercourse  with,  the  United  States. 

Happily  this  condition  of  things  has  ceased  at  last.  Great  Britain  has 
discovered  that  her  Mosquito  protectorate  was  as  useless  to  herself  as  it 
was  injurious  to  Nicaragua,  and  has  abandoned  it.  The  United  States  no 
longer  think  that  they  want  slavery  re-established  in  that  state,  nor  do  they 
desire  anything  at  the  hands  of  its  government  but  that  it  may  so  conduct 
its  affairs  as  to  permit  and  favor  the  opening  of  an  inter-oceanic  navigation, 
which  shall  be  profitable  to  Nicaragua  and  equally  open  to  the  United  States 
and  to  all  other  maritime  nations. 

You  go  to  Nicaragua  in  this  fortunate  conjuncture  of  circumstances. 
There  is  yet  another  comfort  attending  your  mission.  Claims  of  American 
citizens  upon  the  government  of  Nicaragua  have  long  been  a  source  of 
diplomatic  irritation.  A  convention  which  provides  for  the  settlement  of 
these  claims  has  been  already  negotiated.  It  wants  only  the  consent  of  the 
Senate  of  the  United  States  to  an  amendment  proposed  by  Nicaragu,  which, 
it  is  believed,  would  not  materially  change  the  effect  of  the  convention,  and 
such  consent  may,  therefore,  be  expected  to  be  given  at  the  approaching 
special  session  of  Congress. 

Your  instructions,  therefore,  will  be  few  and  very  simple.  Assure  the  repub¬ 
lic  of  Nicaragua  that  the  President  will  deal  with  that  government  justly, 
fairly,  and  in  the  most  friendly  spirit;  that  he  desires  only  its  welfare  and 
prosperity.  Cultivate  friendly  dispositions  there  toward  the  United  States. 
See  that  no  partiality  arises  in  behalf  of  any  other  foreign  state  to  our  pre¬ 
judice,  and  favor,  in  every  way  you  can,  the  improvement  of  the  transit 
route,  seeking  only  such  facilities  for  our  commerce  as  Nicaragua  can  afford 
profitably  to  herself,  and  yield,  at  the  same  time,  to  other  commercial 
nations. 

Let  unpleasant  memories  of  past  differences  be  buried,  and  let  Nicaragua 
be  encouraged  to  rely  on  the  sympathy  and  support  of  the  United  States  if 
she  shall  at  any  time  come  to  need  them. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

A.  B.  Dickixsox,  Esq.,  SfC.,  SfC.,  SfC. 


EGYPT. 


Mr.  Thayer  to  Mr.  Seward. 


No.  3.]  United  States  Consulate  General, 

Alexandria ,  Egypt,  June  29,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  inform  you  of  my  arrival  at  this  port  on  the 
morning  of  the  26th  instant.  The  interruption  of  travel  between  Wash¬ 
ington  and  New  York,  consequent  on  the  late  riotous  proceedings  in  Balti¬ 
more,  and  my  illness  in  Europe,  necessarily  prevented  an  earlier  appearance 
at  my  post. 

Immediate  notice  of  my  arrival,  coupled  with  a  request  for  an  early  inter 
view  with  the  viceroy,  was  served  on  the  minister  of  foreign  affairs,  who 
telegraphed  accordingly  to  the  Pacha,  then  sojourning  at  his  palace  in 
Benha,  about  one  hundred  and  twenty  miles  distant  A  reply  arrived  on  the 
evening  of  the  28th  instant,  that  his  highness  would  visit  Alexandria  and 
give  an  official  reception.  The  promptness  of  his  response,  and  his  obliging 
readiness  in  voluntarily  foregoing  the  usage  which  has  heretofore  required 
diplomatic  agents,  when  asking  an  immediate  interview,  to  present  them¬ 
selves  in  whatever  part  of  Egypt  he  may  have  happened  to  be,  instead  of  his 
coming  to  meet  them,  are  interpreted  here  as  marks  of  special  courtesy  to 
the  government  of  the  United  States. 

At  half-past  eight,  according  to  previous  arrangement,  the  dragoman  of 
the  viceroy  arrived  at  the  United  States  consulate  with  the  state  carriage, 
in  which,  together  with  our  vice-consul,  Mr.  Johnson,  I  was  conveyed  to  the 
palace  built  by  the  late  Mohammed  Ali  on  the  sea-shore.  We  were  also 
accompanied  by  a  cavalcade  of  guards  and  janizaries  attached  to  the  other 
consulates  at  Alexandria.  As  we  entered  the  court-yard  the  troops  were 
drawn  up  in  a  line,  with  quite  a  fine  effect,  on  our  right,  and  we  were  greeted 
with  the  vigorous  music  of  a  military  band. 

Passing  up  the  steps  of  the  palace,  and  between  the  numerous  attendants 
and  officers  who  stood  in  order  on  each  side,  I  was  welcomed  by  the  minister 
of  foreign  affairs,  and  by  him  presented  to  the  viceroy,  who  advanced 
towards  the  centre  of  the  spacious  hall  of  reception.  1  then  addressed  him 
as  follows: 


“  Your  Highness:  I  have  the  honor  to  present  to  your  highness  a  letter  of 
credence  from  the  President  of  the  United  States,  announcing  that  I  have 
been  duly  appointed  to  be  the  consul  general  of  the  United  States  for  Egypt 
and  its  dependencies. 

“  In  thus  accrediting  me  as  a  diplomatic  agent,  the  President  desires  me  to 
assure  your  highness  of  his  cordial  friendship,  and  of  his  satisfaction  in  the 
continuance  of  those  amicable  relations  which  have  so  long  and  so  happily 
subsisted  between  the  governments  of  your  highness  and  of  the  United 
States. 

“  During  my  official  residence  it  will  be  my  pleasant  duty,  acting  in  har¬ 
mony  with  these  assurances  of  the  President,  to  use  all  honorable  means  to 
protect  the  interests  of  my  fellow-citizens,  and  at  the  same  time  to  foster  a 
good  understanding  between  them  and  the  subjects  of  your  highness.  May 
these  purposes  receive  your  highness’s  benevolent  approval.” 


406 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


In  accepting*  my  credentials,  his  highness  replied,  in  French,  that  he  per¬ 
fectly  understood  and  was  much  pleased  with  what  I  had  said;  that  he  wel¬ 
comed  me  to  Egypt,  and  hoped  that  his  relations  with  the  United  States 
woud  be  as  agreeable  hereafter  as  they  had  been  in  times  past. 

The  viceroy  then  invited  me  to  the  divan,  where  we  sat  holding  a  few 
minutes  of  informal  conversation,  with  the  usual  accompaniment  of  pipes 
and  coffee.  His  highness  was  in  his  most  affable  humor.  He  hoped  that 
Egypt  would  prove  agreeable  to  me,  though  I  might  find  it  very  different 
from  the  United  States.  Here  in  Egypt,  he  remarked,  things  go  on  very 
smoothly.  I  replied,  in  so  far  as  things  went  smoothly,  1  trusted  the  United 
States  would  be  able  to  imitate  the  government  of  his  highness.  The  vice¬ 
roy  laughed,  and  then  proceeding  from  gay  to  grave,  mentioned  the  melan¬ 
choly  tidings  he  had  heard  the  night  before  of  the  Sultan’s  death.  I 
responded  that  I  lamented  the  sad  event,  but  was  very  glad,  nevertheless, 
that  the  viceroy  was  in  excellent  health.  His  highness,  whose  domains  are 
but  nominally  a  dependency  of  the  Sultan’s,  seemed  to  take  pleasure  in  this 
compliment.  To  the  suggestion  that  a  voyage  to  the  United  States  in  one 
of  the  excellent  steam  yachts  of  his  navy  might  be  interesting  to  him,  the 
viceroy  answered  that  he  could  not  leave  his  country  for  so  long  a  time. 
This,  I  assured  him,  was  the  worst  disability  under  which  his  highness 
labored.  The  viceroy  made  no  explicit  reference  to  the  present  domestic 
disturbances  in  the  United  States,  but  expressed  his  good  wishes  for  the 
welfare  and  harmony  of  our  government. 

I  was  next  invested  with  “the  sabre  of  honor,”  and  returned  home,  escorted 
in  the  state  carriage  as  before.  Immediately  on  my  reception  by  the  vice¬ 
roy  a  salvo  of  cannon  had  been  fired,  and  at  the  signal,  the  national  flags  of 
all  the  fifteen  consulates  in  Alexandria  were  raised  for  the  day  in  compli¬ 
ment  to  the  occasion.  A  horse,  handsomely  caparisoned,  awaited  me  as  I 
left  the  palace,  and  was  led  to  the  consulate  as  the  gift  of  the  viceroy.  The 
uniform  usage  in  Egypt  makes  this  present  so  essential  a  part  of  a  first 
official  reception  by  the  viceroy,  that  the  refusal  of  it  would  be  deemed 
ungracious,  and  our  government,  in  the  case  of  ail  my  predecessors,  has  per¬ 
mitted  its  acceptance.  As  the  oriental  custom  on  such  occasions  made  it 
necessary  for  me  to  disburse  a  considerable  sum  of  money  in  gratuities  to 
the  very  numerous  soldiers  and  servants  of  the  viceroy,  his  gift  may  be 
regarded  as  in  some  degree  reciprocated.  The  pecuniary  value  of  the  horse 
is  b}r  no  means  large. 

On  returning  to  the  consulate  I  found  the  military  band  of  the  viceroy 
stationed  in  front,  who  continued  their  complimentary  services  during  the 
whole  day.  The  consuls  general  of  other  nations,  and  the  viceroy’s  minister 
for  foreign  affairs,  then  called  upon  me,  appearing  in  full  uniform ;  and  in 
the  afternoon  I  returned  their  visits,  paying  my  respects  first  to  the  minister. 
By  the  minister  and  by  the  consuls  a  deep  and  intelligent  interest  was 
manifested  in  the  affairs  of  the  United  States,  and  warm  wishes  were 
expressed  for  the  continuance  of  our  Union.  The  vigor  of  our  government, 
and  the  vastness,  suddenness,  and  spontaneous  character  of  the  military 
movement  of  our  people  in  the  pending  struggle  for  national  integrity,  seem 
to  have  filled  them  with  surprise.  Indeed,  among  all  well-informed  men 
here,  as  well  as  elsewhere  abroad,  the  historic  battle  fields  of  Europe  have 
paled  in  interest  before  the  tremendous  uprising  of  the  great  nation  beyond 
the  Atlantic.  They  almost  forget  the  political  complications  nearer  home  in 
studying  the  military  map  of  the  United  States.  The  book-shops  of  the 
principal  transatlantic  cities  abound  in  maps,  charts,  and  other  publications 
illustrative  of  the  American  contest,  and  the  United  States  will  become  to 
masses,  hitherto  ignorant  of  its  geography,  a  ground  more  familiar  than 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


407 


were  India  and  the  Crimea  when  the  progress  of  armies  made  their  localities 
significant  to  the  whole  world. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  S.  THAYER. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


Mr.  Thayer  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  4.]  United  States  Consulate  General, 

Alexandria ,  Egypt ,  July  20,  1861. 

n  ^  ’*!<'  4/  4>  4/ 

^  J  •  'T*  'U  'T'  'T'  /|'  'U  'U 

Mr.  Haywood,  secretary  of  the  Manchester  Cotton  Supply  Association,  is 
expected  here  daily  on  a  mission  to  Egypt  and  India,  relative  to  the  pros¬ 
pective  deficiency  of  cotton  produced  by  the  pending  conflict  in  the  United 
States. 

Mr.  Haywood,  while  here,  will  endeavor  to  induce  the  Egyptian  govern¬ 
ment  to  extend  the  cultivation  of  cotton.  It  is  believed  that  the  crop  in 
Egypt  could  be  increased  tenfold  if  the  government  would  tender  its  aid. 
Carelessness  in  allowing  the  small  canals  of  irrigation  to  be  obstructed  is 
said  to  be  a  cause  of  the  comparative  meagreness  of  the  average  yield  of 
this  important  staple. 

This  year,  owing  to  the  unusual  height  of  the  last  overflow  of  the  Nile, 
the  crop  promises  to  exceed  considerably  that  which  preceded  it.  In  ex¬ 
pectation  of  a  scarcity  in  England,  some  of  the  commercial  houses  of  Alex¬ 
andria  are  sending  agents  into  the  interior  to  buy  up  the  cotton  in  advance 
of  harvest.  But  so  well  understood  is  the  condition  of  the  cotton  growing 
region  in  the  United  States,  even  by  the  poorest  fellahs,  (peasants,)  that  it 
is  difficult  to  persuade  them  to  sell  on  terms  which  heretofore  they  would 
have  been  delighted  to  accept.  The  ruling  price,  at  the  last  quotations,  of 
Mako,  which  ranks  next  to  Sea  Island  cotton,  is  215  piastres  ($18  75)  per 
cantar  (a  quintal;)  but  some  of  the  largest  cotton  growers  insist  on  $17  00, 
and  are  holding  back  for  that  unheard  of  figure. 

The  following  information  is  derived  from  intelligent  men  whose  business 
connexions  in  Egpyt  give  authority  to  their  statements  in  reference  to  this 
important  question.  I  also  communicate  some  tabular  statistics  which  are 
appended  to  this  despatch. 

The  cotton  crop  of  Egypt  commences  to  be  gathered  about  the  middle  of 
September.  There  are  two  qualities,  the  Sea  Island  and  the  Mako. 

The  Sea  Island  cottons  are  divided  into  two  kinds.  The  first  is  that  of 
which  the  seed  is  new,  and  which  is  sown  for  the  first  time  in  Egypt.  The 
second  is  that  which  has  been  sown  for  the  second  time.  The  Sea  Island, 
after  the  second  planting,  are  changed  into  fine  Mako. 

The  Mako  are  divided  into  three  kinds,  which  in  commerce  are  called  fine 
quality,  medium  quality,  and  inferior  quality 

It  is  very  difficult  to  give  an  exact  statement  of  the  number  of  quintals 
which  Egypt  annually  produces.  But,  according  to  the  official  tables  of 
exports,  the  total  amount  of  crop  is  valued,  on  an  average  yearly,  at  from 
four  hundred  and  sixty  thousand  to  five  hundred  and  fifty  thousand,  divided 
as  follows: 


408 


CORRESPONDENCE.. 


Quintals. 

Sea  Island,  1st  kind .  2,  000  to  2,500 

Sea  Island,  2d  kind .  1,  000  to  1,  500 

Mako,  fine .  100,  000  to  140,  000 

Mako,  medium .  300,  000  to  380,  000 

Mako,  inferior .  41,  000  to  56,  000 


460,  000  to  550,  000 

The  prices  during  the  sis  months  ending  June  30,  1861,  have  been — 

Piastres  per  quintal. 


Sea  Island,  1st  kind .  450  to  500 

Sea  Island,  2d  kind .  320  to  390 

Mako,  fine .  250  to  360 

Mako,  medium . . .  230  to  270 

Mako,  inferior . . .  180  to  230 


According  to  the  statistics  of  exports,  (they)  have  been  as  follows: 


1859. 

1860 

1861, 1st  six 
months. 

For  England . 

Quintals. 

325,  401 
78,  372 
98,  672 
200 

Qu  ntals. 

311,  253 
41, 080 
78,  302 
160 
620 

Quintals. 

264,  876 
22,  020 
117,  656 
20 

For  Austria . 

For  France . 

For  Italv . 

c/ 

For  Spain . . . 

For  Antwerp . 

156 

Total . . . 

502,  643 

431,  415 

404,  728 

The  tabular  results  of  the  last  six  months  indicate  that  England  will 
absorb  a  far  larger  proportion  of  Egyptian  cotton  than  heretofore. 

As  before  remarked,  a  favorable  expectation  prevails  respecting  the  new 
crop,  because  the  waters  of  the  Nile  have  now  almost  reached  the  level  of 
the  same  period  last  year.  But  this  expectation  may  fail,  for  the  goodness 
of  the  crop  depends,  not  solely  on  the  overflow  of  the  Nile,  but  also  on  the 
winds,  which  are  more  or  less  auspicious  at  the  time  of  the  efflorescence  of 
the  pods. 

Thus  far  the  disturbances  in  America,  which  have  produced  various 
fluctuations  in  the  price  of  cotton,  have  not  as  yet  caused  an  increase  of 
more  than  two  dollars  (40  piastres)  per  quintal. 

An  informal  application  has  been  made  to  me  in  behalf  of  various  Greek 
and  Italian  residents  of  Alexandria,  who  desire  to  enlist  in  the  military 
service  of  the  United  States,  if  means  shall  be  furnished  to  transport  them 
thither.  I  replied  that  I  should,  while  appreciating  their  benevolent  wishes 
to  our  country,  await  instructions  from  my  government  before  giving  them 
any  encouragement. 

The  4th  of  July,  in  Alexandria,  was  observed  in  the  usual  manner.  The 
flags  of  all  the  fifteen  consulates  were  raised  for  the  day.  The  minister  of 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


409 


foreign  affairs  of  the  Egyptian  government  also  paid  me  his  annual  visit  in 
honor  of  the  occasion,  during  which  he  expressed  his  wishes  for  the  perma¬ 
nence  of  our  Union,  and  his  opinion  of  the  hopelessness  of  the  cause  of  its 
domestic  enemies.  He  appeared  quite  astonished  at  the  magnitude  and 
efficiency  of  our  military  operations. 

At  a  dinner,  given  by  the  vice-consul  in  honor  of  the  day,  which  was  at¬ 
tended  by  the  consul  general  of  the  kingdom  of  Italy  and  other  distinguished 
residents  of  the  city,  the  occasion  was  enthusiastically  commemorated. 


Respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 


Hon.  W.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State ,  Washington ,  D. 


WM.  S.  THAYER, 

U.  S.  Consul  General  for  Egypt. 

C. 


Cotton  exported  from  Egypt  during  the  last  five  years ,  1856-’5T-’58-’59-  60. 


1856. 

1857. 

1858. 

1859. 

1860. 

Cantars, 

Cantars, 

Cantars, 

Cantars, 

Cantars, 

539,885. 

490,968. 

519,537. 

502,645. 

501,324. 

Or  bags  of  2  cantars 

Or  bags  of  2  eantars 

Or  bags  of  2  cantars 

Or  bags  of  2  cantars 

Or  bags  of  2  cantars 

each, 

each, 

each, 

each, 

each, 

269,942. 

245,484. 

259,768. 

251,322. 

250,662. 

Or  pressed  bales  of 

Or  pressed  bales  of 

Or  pressed  bales  of 

Or  pressed  bales  of 

Or  pressed  bales  of 

4  cantars  each, 

4  cantars  each, 

4  cantars  each, 

4  cantars  each, 

4  cantars  each, 

134,971. 

122,742. 

129,884. 

125,661. 

125,331. 

Tliis  year’s  crop  is  not  yet  known,  it  being  still  growing,  and  will  be  gathered  about  the  months  of  Sep¬ 
tember  to  December,  although  it  is  estimated  to  be  equal  to  that  of  the  preceding  years. 

Alexandria,  Egypt,  July  15,  1861. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Thayer. 

No.  3.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington ,  August  13,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  received  and  have  read  with  much  interest  your  despatch  of 
the  29th  of  June,  (No.  3,)  announcing  your  arrival  in  Egypt,  and  giving  an 
account  of  your  reception  by  the  viceroy.  Your  remarks  on  that  occasion, 
as  well  as  your  conduct  throughout  the  imposing  ceremonial,  are  approved, 
and  the  friendly  feeling  towards  the  United  States  manifested  by  his  high¬ 
ness  in  your  interview  with  him,  and  subsequently  by  his  minister  of  foreign 
affairs,  and  by  the  consuls  general  representing  other  nations  in  Egypt,  is 
very  gratifying. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WM.  H.  SEWARD. 

William  S.  Thayer,  Esq., 

Consul  General  of  the  United  States ,  Alexandria ,  Egypt. 


'I 


•• 


VENEZUELA. 


Mr.  Turpin  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  45.] 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Caracas ,  July  27,  1861. 

Sir  :  * 

>1/  »•/  >1/  vC  >1/  *1/  *1/ 

/fv  /fv  *7* 

The  President  has  promised  me  to  issue  instructions  to  all  comandantes 
de  puerto  of  the  republic  prohibiting  admission  of  all  vessels  under  that 
[the  confedate]  flag  into  its  ports,  except  in  cases  of  distress.  I  could  not 
obtain  from  him  their  complete  denunciation  as  pirates. 

I  have  the  honor,  &c., 

E.  A.  TURPIN. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State. 


CHILI. 


Mr.  Bigler  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  136.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Santiago  de  Cliili ,  August  2,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith,  marked  A,  a  copy  of  a  note  by 
me  addressed  to  his  excellency  the  secretary  of  foreign  relations  of  Chili, 
dated  July  31,  1861. 

vU  vL»  xlx  »!'  Oy  >!> 

/p  /p  /fv  ^p  ^p 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  very  respectfullv,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  BIGLER. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


A. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Santiago  de  Chili,  July  31,  1861. 

Sir:  The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  has  the  honor  to  inform  3rour  excellency 
that,  in  consequence  of  the  President  of  the  so-called  “Confederated  States 
of  America”  having  issued  a  proclamation  announcing  that  he  has  been 
empowered  and  is  prepared  to  issue  letters  of  marque  to  all  who  are  willing 
to  enter  the  service  of  the  said  States  as  privateers,  he,  the  undersigned,  has 
been  instructed  by  his  government  to  be  vigilant  to  the  extent  of  his  power 
to  prevent  vessels  from  being  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of  Chili  under  the 
authority  of  the  said  “Confederated  States.”  The  government  of  the  unde¬ 
signed,  denying  the  right  of  the  States  composing  the  so-called  “  Confederated 
States  of  America”  to  secede,  as  they  have  done,  from  the  American  Union, 
and  maintaining  that  the  people  of  the  States  which  have  so  seceded  still 
owe  fealty  to  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States,  has  determined 
to  enforce  obedience  thereto  on  the  part  of  the  whole  people  thereof,  and  has 
solemnly  proclaimed  and  declared  that  any  person  who  shall,  “  under  the 
pretended  authority  of  the  Confederated  States,  or  under  any  other  pretence, 
molest  a  vessel  of  the  United  States,  or  the  persons  or  cargo  on  board  of  her, 
such  person  will  be  held  amenable  to  the  laws  of  the  United  States  for  the 
prevention  and  punishment  of  piracy.” 

Information  has  recently  been  communicated  to  the  undersigned  of  such  a 
character  and  from  such  sources  as  to  induce  the  belief  on  his  part  that  there 
are  now,  or  have  very  recently  been,  in  Chili  parties  endeavoring  to  effect  a 
purchase  of  munitions  of  war  to  be  used  in  fitting  out  privateers  for  the 
service  of  the  so-called  “  Confederated  States  of  America.” 

Although  the  undersigned  cannot  vouch  for  the  correctness  of  this  inferma- 


414 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


tion,  he  can  assure  your  excellency  that  he  regards  the  same  of  sufficient 
importance,  in  view  of  the  before-mentioned  instructions  of  his  government, 
to  require  him  to  inform  your  excellency  thereof,  and  to  very  respectfully 
suggest  to  your  excellency’s  government  to  adopt  such  measures  as  it  may 
deem  advisable  to  secure  vigilance  on  the  part  of  the  proper  officials  to 
prevent  the  fitting  out  of  privateers  in  the  ports  of  Chili  with  a  view  of  com¬ 
mitting  assaults  upon  the  lives  and  property  of  citizens  of  his  country 
engaged  in  lawful  commerce. 

In  conclusion,  the  undersigned  begs  to  add  that  he  has  directed  inquiries 
to  be  made  at  the  different  ports  in  Chili,  and  that  he  will  promptly  impart  to 
your  excellency’s  government  any  important  facts  relating  to  the  object  of 
this  note  which  may  hereafter  come  to  his  knowledge. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  your  excel¬ 
lency  assurances  of  his  sincere  respect  and  high  consideration. 

JOHN  BIGLER. 

His  Excel’y  the  Secretary  of  Foreign  Relations 

Of  the  Republic  of  Chili. 


Mr.  Bigler  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  138.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Santiago  de  Chili ,  August  It,  1861. 

Sir:  “In  my  despatch,  No.  136,  dated  August  2,  1861,  I  had  the  honor  to 
enclose  a  copy  of  a  note  by  me  addressed  to  his  excellency  the  secretary  of 
foreign  relations  of  Chili,  inviting  his  attention  to  the  instructions  given  me 
by  my  government,  and  also  to  rumors  which  had  reached  me  concerning 
efforts  making  in  the  city  of  Valparaiso  to  obtain  munitions  of  war  to  be 
used,  as  was  feared,  in  fitting  out  privateers,  under  the  authority  of  the  so- 
called  ‘  Confederate  States  of  America.’ 

“  I  now  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith,  marked  A,  a  copy  and  transla¬ 
tion  of  his  excellency’s  reply  to  my  note  above  alluded  to,  and  which,  as  it 
is  exceedingly  cordial,  and  in  every  respect  highly  satisfactory,  it  is  hoped 
will  be  read  with  care  and  pleasure  by  you.” 

■<f.  -V-  -V-  al  y-  .y,  .y.  .y.  .y. 

“ff*  VT  *A*  '7^  '7V  '7V*  W  tT  7v 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  BIGLER. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States. 


A. 

Mr.  Varas  to  Mr.  Seicard. 
[Translation.] 


l.  s.J  Santiago,  August  7,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  had  the  honor  of  reading  the  note  dated  the  31st  ultimo, 
which  your  excellency  was  pleased  to  address  me.  In  it  your  excellency 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


415 


informs  me  that  you  have  received  instructions  from  your  government  to 
endeavor  to  impede,  as  far  as  your  powers  will  permit,  that  in  the  ports  of 
Chili  privateers  be  armed  for  the  service  of  the  States  which  have  recently 
declined  to  recognize  the  authority  of  the  government  of  the  Union,  and 
have  constituted  themselves  under  a  de  facto  government,  with  the  title  of 
Confederated  States  of  America — instructions  given  to  your  excellency  in 
consequence  of  a  recent  proclamation  of  the  President  of  these  States, 
wherein  he  announces  that  he  is  empowered  and  prepared  to  issue  letters  of 
marque. 

At  the  same  time  your  excellency  informs  me  that  you  have  recently 
received  information  inducing  you  to  believe  that  there  are  at  present,  or 
recently  have  been,  in  Chili,  persons  endeavoring  to  purchase  munitions  of 
war,  in  order  to  employ  the  same  in  arming  privateers  for  the  service  of 
the  said  Confederated  States  of  America;  and  in  view  of  this  information 
your  excellency  signifies  to  me  a  desire  that  my  government  adopt  such 
measures  as  it  may  deem  expedient,  in  order  to  prevent  the  fitting  out  of 
such  privateers  in  the  ports  of  the  republic. 

I  must  assure  your  excellency,  in  reply,  that  my  government,  complying 
with  the  duties  which  it  owes  to  a  friendly  state,  is  disposed  to  prevent 
preparations  of  warlike  character,  or  any  other  operations  hostile  to  the 
United  States,  from  being  effected  in  any  port  whatever  of  the  territory  of 
the  republic  ;  and  that  consequently  the  necessar}7  orders  will  be  given  to 
the  respective  authorities  to  keep  especial  watch  in  this  particular.  How¬ 
ever,  as  far  as  regards  privateering  expeditions  which  may  prepare  or  arm 
themselves  on  the  coasts  of  Chili,  it  might  happen  in  many  cases  that  the 
zeal  and  vigilance  of  the  authorities  might  prove  inefficacious  to  discover 
them  ;  so  that  it  is  to  be  desired  that  whatever  news  your  excellency  might 
obtain  on  the  subject,  you  would  have  the  kindness  to  transmit  the  same  to 
me,  in  order  that  I  might,  in  view  thereof,  issue  the  most  opportune  instruc¬ 
tions  to  frustrate  the  carrying  out  of  such  expeditions. 

In  the  mean  time  will  your  excellency  be  pleased  to  accept  the  assurances 
of  my  distinguished  consideration,  with  which  I  remain  your  excellency’s 
most  obedient  servant, 

ANTONIO  VARAS. 

The  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister  Plenipotentiary 

Of  the  United  States  of  North  America. 


Mr.  Bigler  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  139.]  Legation  of  the  United  States, 

Santiago  de  Chili,  September  2,  1861. 

“Herewith  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose,  marked  A,  a  copy  of  a  communr 
cation  by  me  addressed  to  his  excellency  the  secretary  of  foreign  relations 
of  this  republic,  under  date  of  August  21,  1861,  in  acknowledgment  of  a 
note  from  his  excellency,  dated  August  7,  1861,  upon  the  subject  of  the 
suppression  of  rumored  privateering  expeditions,  which  iote  formed  enclo¬ 
sure  A  in  my  despatch  No.  138.” 

*  *  *  *  *  * 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

JOHN  BIGLER. 


416 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Bigler  to  Mr.  Varas. 

Legation  of  the  United  States, 
Santiago  de  Chili,  August  21,  1861. 

Sir:  The  undersigned,  envoy  extraordinary  and  minister  plenipotentiary 
of  the  United  States  of  America,  has  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt 
of  your  excellency’s  note,  dated  August  1,  1861,  in  reply  to  his  note  of  the 
81st  ultimo,  wherein  your  excellency  is  pleased  to  give  assurances  that  the 
necessary  orders  will  be  transmitted  to  the  respective  authorities  to  prevent 
the  making  of  preparations  of  war,  or  any  other  operations  hostile  to  the 
United  States,  within  the  territory  of  the  republic,  and  requesting  the 
undersigned  to  transmit  to  your  excellency  any  information  which  he  may 
obtain  of  contemplated  privateering  operations,  in  order  to  facilitate  the 
frustration  of  the  objects  of  such  expeditions. 

The  undersigned,  in  acknowledging  the  receipt  of  these  eminent! y  satis¬ 
factory  assurances,  which  he  most  cordially  appreciates,  as  will  also  his 
government,  desires  to  state  that  any  information  upon  the  subject,  of  a 
definite  character,  which  he  may  receive,  will  be  immediately  communicated 
to  3rour  excellency’s  government. 

The  undersigned  avails  himself  of  this  occasion  to  renew  to  vour  excel- 
lency  the  earnest  assurances  of  his  distinguished  consideration  and  respect. 

JOHN  BIGLER. 

His  Excellency  the  Secretary  of  Foreign  Relations 

Of  the  Republic  of  Chili. 


HAWAIIAN  ISLANDS. 


Mr.  Dryer  to  Mr.  Seward. 

[Extract.] 

No.  4.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  at  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 

Honolulu ,  September  5,  1861 

*  ^  >}S  5jC 

I  have  not  been  able  yet  to  obtain  from  the  Hawaiian  government  such 
a  proclamation  as  I  desired  upon  the  subject  of  privateering,  or  the  permis¬ 
sion  to  enter  the  ports  of  this  kingdom  of  any  suspicious  vessels. 

The  King  and  a  portion  of  his  counsellors  are  sojourning  on  the  island 
of  Hawaii  during  the  summer  months.  Copies  of  the  President’s  proclama¬ 
tion  in  relation  to  blockade  of  southern  ports,  together  with  the  despatches 
from  the  Department  of  State  accompanying  them,  have  been  furnished  to 
the  minister  of  foreign  relations,  since  which  I  have  had  several  interviews 
with  that  minister  relative  to  the  policy  of  this  government  towards  priva¬ 
teering,  and  the  occupancy  of  their  ports  by  privateering  vessels  or  prizes 
which  might  be  captured  by  them. 


No.  l.J  Legation  of  the  United  States  at  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 

Honolulu ,  July  24,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  enclose  herewith  copies  of  two  despatches  from 
the  Hon.  William  II.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State  of  the  United  States,  and 
of  two  proclamations  (April  19  and  April  27,  1861)  issued  by  his  excel¬ 
lency  Abraham  Lincoln,  President  of  the  United  States,  announcing  the 
blockade  of  the  ports  of  several  of  the  southern  States,  and  making  known 
that  all  persons  acting  under  the  pretended  authority  of  the  aforesaid 
southern  States,  or  under  any  pretence  whatever,  who  shall  molest  vessels  of 
the  United  States  or  their  cargoes,  shall  be  considered  arid  dealt  with  as 
pirates. 

You  will  observe,  by  a  perusal  of  the  cop3T  of  Mr.  Seward’s  despatch  to 
me  of  the  20th  April,  1861,  that  I  am  instructed  to  be  vigilant  in  preventing 
aggressions  upon  American  commerce  by  vessels  or  persons  acting  under 
the  pretended  authority  mentioned. 

To  this  end  I  would  respectfully  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the 
American  clipper  ship  Bald  Eagle,  bound  from  San  Francisco  to  China,  with 
a  large  amount  of  treasure  on  board,  having  been  chased,  on  her  passage  to 
this  group,  by  a  suspicious  vessel,  and  to  officially  inquire  of  you  what 
course  his  Hawaiian  Majesty’s  government  intends  to  pursue  with  regard 
to  vessels  of  this  description  found  frequenting  the  King’s  waters,  or  touch¬ 
ing  for  supplies  or  repairs  at  any  of  the  ports  in  his  Majesty’s  dominions. 

1  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  J.  DRYER. 

His  Excellency  R.  C.  Wyllie, 

His  Hawaiian  Mijesty's  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs ,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 

27 


418 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


No.  1.]  Department  of  Foreign  Affairs, 

City  of  Honolulu,  July  27,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  despatch  of  the 
24th  instant,  with  its  four  enclosures,  which  you  did  me  the  great  favor  of 
delivering  personally,  along  with  verbal  explanations,  for  which  I  beg  to 
thank  you  in  the  name  of  the  King’s  government. 

By  your  despatch  and  its  enclosures  I  am  informed  that  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State,  William  H.  Seward,  apprehensive  lest,  “  under  the  pre¬ 
tended  authority  of  the  so-called  Confederate  States  of  America,”  privateers 
might  be  fitted  out  in  the  ports  of  this  kingdom  for  the  purpose  of  aggres¬ 
sion  on  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  instructed  you,  on  the  20th  of 
April  last,  to  be  vigilant  in  preventing  any  such  unlawful  purpose;  to  make 
known  to  the  proper  authorities  of  this  government  the  proclamations  issue  d 
by  the  President;  impart  to  them  all  facts  upon  the  subject  which  might 
come  to  your  knowledge;  and  to  ascertain  from  the  King’s  government, 
officially,  what  course  they  intended  to  pursue  with  regard  to  vessels  of  tli  at 
description  frequenting  the  King’s  waters,  or  touching  for  supplies  or  re¬ 
pairs  at  any  of  the  ports  in  his  Majesty’s  dominions;  all  which  instructions 
you  carried  out  very  fully,  and  with  great  courtesy,  in  your  precited 
despatch,  and  in  the  facts,  no  less  important  to  th^United  States  than  to 
this  kingdom,  which  you  were  pleased  to  impart  to  me  verbally  on  the  occa¬ 
sion  of  its  delivery. 

In  reply,  I  have  the  honor  to  refer  you  to  the  proclamation  of  the  late 
King  of  16tli  May,  1854,  asserting  his  neutral  rights  within  the  whole  ex¬ 
tent  of  his  jurisdiction,  declaring  all  captures  and  seizures  made  within 
that  jurisdiction  to  be  unlawful,  and  prohibiting  his  subjects  from  engaging, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  in  privateering,  under  the  penalty  of  being 
treated  and  punished  as  pirates;  to  the  resolution  of  his  late  Majesty,  in 
privy  council  of  15th  June,  1854,  prohibiting  the  sale  of  prizes  within  his 
jurisdiction,  and  to  the  resolution  of  his  late  Majesty,  in  privy  council  of 
the  17th  July  of  the  same  year,  prohibiting  all  privateers,  and  prizes 
made  by  them,  from  entering  the  ports  of  this  kingdom,  unless  in  such 
circumstances  of  distress  that  their  exclusion  would  involve  a  sacrifice 
of  life,  and  then  only  under  special  permission  of  the  King,  after  proof  to 
his  Majesty’s  satisfaction  of  such  circumstances  of  distress;  copies  of  all 
which  you  will  find  in  your  archives,  for  they  were  duly  passed  at  the  time 
to  the  Hon.  David  L.  Gregg  for  his  own  and  the  information  of  his  gov¬ 
ernment. 

1  have  the  honor  to  enclose  copy  of  the  reply  of  the  honorable  judges  of 
the  supreme  court,  dated  yesterday,  in  reply  to  my  letters  to  them  of  the 
5tli,  10th,  13th,  and  24th  instant,  from  which  you  will  see  that,  in  their 
opinion,  the  said  proclamation  and  resolutions  are  in  accordance  with  the 
rights  of  the  King,  and  with  his  Majesty’s  duties  as  a  neutral  sovereign  to 
the  United  States  ;  and  that  under  the  same  neither  can  privateers  be  fitted 
out  in  the  ports  of  this  kingdom,  nor  can  its  ports  be  used  as  a  depot  for 
the  spoils  or  the  prisoners  made  by  privateers. 

Therefore  it  only  remains  for  me  to  make  known  to  the  King,  who  is  at 
Kailua,  your  despatch  and  its  enclosures,  also  the  opinion  of  his  Majesty’s 
judges  of  the  supreme  court,  and  to  suggesttohis  Majesty  that  he  be  pleased 
to  issue  a  proclamation  revalidating  the  aforesaid  proclamation  and  resolu¬ 
tions,  with  an  order  that  copies  of  such  proclamation  be  published  in  the 
Polynesian,  and  served  immediately  by  the  pilots  or  harbor  master  upon 
any  belligerent  vessel  that  may  appear  in  his  Majesty’s  waters,  until  the 
conclusion  of  the  civil  war  now  unhappily  devastating  the  United  States. 

Ycu  can  assure  the  honorable  Secretarv  of  State  of  your  government  that 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


419 


the  King,  knowing  well  his  obligations  and  responsibilities  to  the  United 
States  under  the  law  of  nations  and  the  existing  treaty,  will  neglect  no 
means  to  fulfil  them  to  the  utmost  extent  of  his  power  ;  but  destitute  as  you 
know  him  to  be  of  either  army,  navy,  or  forts,  that  power  is  only  moral ,  and 
if  armed  vessels  should  enter  his  waters,  disregarding  alike  his  neutral 
rights  and  the  law  of  nations,  captures  might  be  made  within  his  jurisdic¬ 
tion  contrary  to  his  proclamation,  and  in  spite  of  all  the  efforts  that  he  could 
make  to  prevent  them. 

Therefore  I  repeat  what  I  had  the  honor  to  state  to  you  verbally,  that  in 
a  port  where  man}7-  millions  of  value  in  x\merican  whaleships,  oil  and  bone, 
and  in  merchant  vessels,  are  often  to  be  found,  and  which  might  be  captured 
or  bi  rnt  by  one  strong  privateer,  in  defiance  of  all  the  King’s  forces,  it  is  of 
urgent  necessity  that  Honolulu  should  not  be  left  without  the  presence  of  a 
vessel-of-war  of  the  United  States  of  sufficient  power  to  deter  any  such  pri¬ 
vateer  from  committing  aggressions  on  the  ships  or  property  of  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  within  the  King’s  jurisdiction.  I  was  happy  to  under¬ 
stand  from  you  that  you  had  not  neglected  to  make  such  a  recommendation 
to  your  government. 

In  conclusion,  let  me  assure  you  that  in  this  and  every  other  international 
matter  it  will  afford  me  the  utmost  pleasure  to  confer  and  concert  with  you 
with  all  that  frankness  and  confidence  that,  according  to  Martens  and  other 
publicists,  ought  to  exist  between  a  foreign  representative  and  the  minister 
of  foreign  affairs  of  the  country  to  which  he  is  accredited  and  sent  ;  but 
more  especially  be  assured  of  the  high  respect  and  very  distinguished  con¬ 
sideration  with  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient,  hum¬ 
ble  servant, 

R  C.  WYLLIE. 

Hon.  Thomas  J.  Dryer,  Com’r  of  the  United  States  to  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 


Court-House, 
Honolulu ,  duly  26,  1861. 

Sir:  I  have  the  honor  to  receive  your  communications  of  the  1st,  10th, 
13th,  and  25th  instant,  and  their  enclosures.  The  justices  of  the  supreme 
court  have  examined  the  proclamation  issued  by  her  Britannic  Majesty  the 
Queen,  and  also  the  proclamation  issued  by  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  issued  in  consequence  of  hostilities  having  arisen  between  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  the  United  States  and  certain  States  styling  themselves  the 
Confederate  States  of  America,  together  with  the  communication  of  the 
Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Seward,  and  the  commissioner  of  the  United  States 
at  this  court  accompanying  them. 

Mr.  Seward  is  apprehensive  that  efforts  may  be  made  to  fit  out  privateers 
in  our  ports  for  the  purpose  of  aggression  on  American  commerce.  To  per¬ 
mit  it  would  unquestionably  be  a  breach  of  neutrality  and  in  derogation  of 
our  duty;  neither  can  our  ports  be  used  as  a  depot  for  the  spoils  or  the 
prisoners  of  privateers. 

We  1  lave  also  examined  the  proclamation  issued  in  1854  by  his  Majesty 
the  King,  proclaiming  neutrality  in  the  war  then  pending  between  the 
great  maritime  powers  of  Europe,  and  the  resolutions  of  the  privy  council 
which  accompanied  it,  and  we  are  of  opinion  that  similar  declarations  at 
this  time  will  be  in  accordance  with  our  rights  and  duties  as  neutrals 

I  beg  to  return  to  you  the  enclosures  which  accompanied  your  comm  uni 
cations. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  servants, 

ELISHA  If.  ALLEN. 

G.  M.  ROBERTSON 

His  Excellency  R.  C.  Wyllie,  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs. 


420 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


Mr.  Dryer  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  5.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  at  the  Hawaiian  Islands, 

Honolulu ,  September  7,  1861. 

Sir:  Since  my  despatch  of  the  5th  September  was  closed  and  mailed,  Mr. 
Wyllie  has  sent  to  this  legation  another  draft  of  a  proclamation  of  the  King 
in  relation  to  privateering,  &c.,  &c.  This  is  an  improvement  on  the  former 
one  sent  to  me,  and  which  I  returned. 

I  have  only  time  to  make  a  copy,  which  please  find  enclosed,  and  which  I 
send  for  the  information  of  the  government  at  Washington. 

I  am,  sir,  with  great  respect,  your  obedient  servant, 

THOMAS  J.  DRYER. 

Hon.  Wm.  H.  Seward, 

Secretary  of  State,  Washington. 


Troclamation  of  Kamehameha  IV,  King  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands. 

Be  it  known  to  all  whom  it  may  concern,  that  we,  Kamehameha  IV, 
King  of  the  Hawaiian  Islands,  having  been  officially  notified  that  hostilities 
are  now'  unhappily  pending  between  the  government  of  the  United  States 
and  certain  States  thereof,  styling  themselves  “  The  Confederate  States  of 
America,”  hereby  proclaim  our  neutrality  between  said  contending  parties. 

That  our  neutrality  is  to  be  respected  to  the  full  extent  of  our  jurisdic¬ 
tion,  and  that  all  captures  and  seizures  made  within  the  same  are  unlawful, 
and  in  violation  of  our  rights  as  a  sovereign. 

And  be  it  further  known  that  we  hereby  strictly  prohibit  all  our  subjects, 
and  all  who  reside  or  may  be  within  our  jurisdiction,  from  engaging,  either 
directly  or  indirectly,  in  privateering  against  the  shipping  or  commerce  of 
either  of  the  contending  parties,  or  of  rendering  any  aid  to  such  enterprises 
whatever;  and  all  persons  so  offending  will  be  liable  to  the  penalties  imposed 
by  the  laws  of  nations,  as  well  as  by  the  laws  of  said  States,  and  they  will 
in  nowise  obtain  any  protection  from  us  as  against  any  penal  consequences 
which  they  may  incur. 

Be  it  further  known  that  no  adjudication  of  prizes  will  be  entertained 
within  our  jurisdiction,  nor  will  the  sale  of  goods  or  other  propert}7  belonging 
to  prizes  be  allowed. 

Be  it  further  known  that  the  rights  of  asylum  are  not  extended  to  the 
privateers  or  their  prizes  of  either  of  the  contending  parties,  excepting  only 
in  cases  of  distress  or  of  compulsory  delay  by  stress  of  weather  or  dangers 
of  the  sea,  or  in  such  cases  as  may  be  regulated  by  treaty  stipulation. 

Given  at  our  marine  residence  of  Kailua  this  26th  day  of  August,  A.  D. 
1861,  and  the  seventh  of  our  reign. 

KAMEHAMEHA. 

By  the  King. 

KAAHUMANU. 

By  the  King  and  Kuhina  Xui. 


R.  C.  WYLLIE. 


JAPAN. 


Mr.  Harris  to  Mr.  Seward. 

No.  28.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  in  Japan, 

Yedo,  July  9,  1861. 

Sir:  It  is  my  unpleasant  duty  to  inform  you  that  a  daring  and  murderous 
attack  was  made  on  the  British  legation  in  this  city  on  the  night  of  the  5th 
instant. 

Mr.  Alcock  providentially  escaped  uninjured,  but  Mr.  Oliphant,  secretary 
of  legation,  and  Mr.  Morrison,  consul  for  Nagasaki,  were  wounded.  Four  of 
the  assailants  were  killed,  and  two  wounded  were  made  prisoners.  Of  the 
Japanese  defenders  of  Mr.  Alcock  three  were  killed  and  fifteen  wounded. 

For  full  details  of  this  bloody  affair  I  beg  to  refer  you  to  the  following 
enclosures: 

No.  1,  Mr  Alcock  to  Mr.  Harris,  July  6. 

No.  2,  Mr.  Harris  to  the  ministers  for  foreign  affairs,  July  8. 

No.  8,  Mr.  Harris  to  Mr.  Alcock,  July  8. 

No.  4,  Mr  Alcock  to  Mr.  Harris,  July  8. 

The  Japanese  were  evidently  taken  by  surprise,  but  they  soon  recovered 
from  it  and  fought  with  great  bravery,  and  at  last  beat  off  the  assailants. 

This  is  the  first  instance  in  which  a  blow  has  been  struck  in  defence  of  a 
foreigner  in  this  country,  and  may  be  considered  as  proof  of  the  desire  of 
this  government  to  give  us  protection. 

I  consider  the  present  as  a  crisis  in  the  foreign  affairs  of  Japan,  for  if  the 
government  is  too  weak  to  punish  the  instigators  and  agents  of  this  nefari¬ 
ous  affair,  it  may  be  believed  that  it  will  lead  to  some  very  decided  action 
on  the  part  of  the  English  government,  for  the  outrage  was  too  great  to  be 
overlooked. 

There  is  a  party  in  this  country  who  are  opposed  to  the  presence  of  any 
foreigners  in  Japan,  and,  in  addition  to  this,  there  is  a  very  strong  dislike 
to  the  English  in  particular,  which  feeling  seems  to  attach  especially  to  Mr. 
Alcock.  He  was  absent  from  this  city  for  some  three  months,  during  which 
time  the  utmost  quiet  prevailed;  yet  within  thirty-six  hours  after  his  return 
the  attack  in  question  was  made  on  him. 

I  am  happy  to  say  that  these  prejudices  do  not  extend  to  our  citizens  in 
this  country,  and  I  think  that  I  am  personally  popular  among  all  classes  of 
the  Japanese.  Yet  it  must  not  be  concealed  from  you  that  I  am,  in  common 
with  my  colleagues,  subject  to  the  same  unpopularity  that  attaches  to  the 
presence  of  all  foreigners  in  Japan 

I  have  requested  the  ministers  for  foreign  affairs  to  give  me  an  interview 
on  the  11th  instant,  and  I  shall  then  endeavor  to  place  before  them,  in  a 
forcible  manner,  the  great  danger  that  will  arise  from  any  want  of  firm  action 
on  their  part  at  this  juncture. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  very  respectfully,  your  obedient  servant, 

TOWNSEND  HARRIS,  Minister  Resident. 

Hon.  William  II.  Seward,  Secretary  of  State ,  Washington. 


Mr.  Alcock  to  Mr.  Harris. 

Her  Majesty’s  Legation,  Yedo ,  July  6,  1861. 

Sir  :  Last  night  between  eleven  and  twelve  o’clock  the  British  legation 
was  suddenly  attacked,  and  an  entrance  effected  at  several  points  simulta¬ 
neously  by  armed  bands  of  Japanese,  said  to  be  Loonins,  and  by  others, 
Prince  of  Mito’s  men.  Two  of  the  members  of  the  establishment,  Mr.  Oli- 


422 


CORRESPONDENCE 


pliant  and  Mr.  Morrison,  were  met  in  a  passage  and  both  wounded  ;  the 
first,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  very  severely,  when  a  momentary  diverson  was 
effected  by  a  shot  from  Mr.  Morrison’s  revolver,  which  appears  to  have  taken 
effect.  A  few  minutes  later  the  same  or  another  division  of  the  assassins 
sought  to  effect  an  entrance  to  the  apartments  occupied  by  myself,  by 
breaking  through  and  hacking  in  pieces  some  glass  doors  opening  into 
another  suite,  having  mistaken  their  way.  To  this  alone,  under  Providence, 
we  probably  owe  our  lives,  for  several  minutes  were  thus  lost  to  them  ;  at 
the  end  of  which  the  Yaconins  or  Dainios  guards  appeared  to  have  come  to 
the  spot,  and  the  assailants  were  finally  driven  out  of  the  house,  after  having 
penetrated  into  nearly  every  room  except  my  own,  leaving  traces  of  their 
presence  by  slashing  at  all  the  beds  and  furniture.  Marks  of  blood  were  found 
in  various  directions,  and  a  prolonged  conflict  took  place  outside,  in  the 
avenue  and  approaches  to  the  legation,  with  the  officers  and  men  on  service. 

Such  a  deed  of  atrocity,  perpetrated  in  the  capital  of  a  government  to 
which  foreign  representatives  are  accredited  by  the  western  powers,  needs 
no  comment.  I  only  feel  it  a  duty  to  communicate  to  my  colleagues  the 
facts  for  their  guidance  and  information,  and  to  acquaint  them  that,  as  a 
temporary  measure,  I  have  ordered  up  her  Majesty’s  ship  “Ringdove,”  and 
caused  a  guard  of  men  to  be  landed.  What  measures  it  may  be  expedient 
to  adopt  for  future  security  of  this  and  the  other  legations  in  Yedo,  and  the 
maintenance  of  those  international  rights  and  immunities  so  grievously 
attacked,  becomes  a  serious  consideration,  and  one  the  pressing  importance 
of  which  cannot  well  be  overlooked.  But  on  this  part  of  the  subject  I  shall 
be  glad  to  enter  into  further  communication  with  you  and  the  rest  of  my  col¬ 
leagues,  should  you  feel  disposed  to  favor  me  with  your  views. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

RUTHERFORD  ALCOCK, 


Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Envoy  Extraordinary  and  Minister 

Plenipotentiary  in  Japan. 


Townsend  Harris,  Esq., 

Resident  Minister  of  the  United  States  in  Japan. 


Mr.  T.  Harris  to  the  Ministers  for  Foreign  Affairs  of  Japan. 

No.  10.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  in  Japan, 

Yedo ,  July  8,  1861. 

I  am  informed  by  Mr.  Alcock,  the  British  envoy,  that  an  attempt  was  made  on 
the  night  of  the  5th  instant  to  assassinate  him  and  the  persons  attached  to  the 
British  legation  in  this  city.  I  am  further  informed  that  the  house  was  broken 
into  at  the  same  moment  of  time  in  three  different  places  ;  and  that,  during 
the  contest,  two  persons  in  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  service  were  wounded. 

This  makes  the  seventh  attack  on  foreigners  within  the  period  of  two 
years  ;  and  in  five  of  the  attempts  murder  was  committed.  Up  to  this  day 
not  one  person  has  been  punished  for  these  atrocious  crimes.  You  have 
frequently  assured  me  that  you  were  making  constant  efforts  to  arrest  these 
criminals,  but  that  you  were  unable  to  discover  them. 

In  the  present  case  evidence  is  in  your  possession  to  enable  you  to  arrest 
the  persons  concerned  in  the  last  atrocious  attempt  at  murder,  for  you  have 
made  a  prisoner  of  one  of  the  men,  and  you  have  a  pocket-book  found  on 
the  ground  which  contains  a  list  of  the  names  of  fourteen  of  the  party  ;  and 
these  two  sources  of  evidence  will  enable  you  to  arrest  and  bring  to  condign 
punishment  the  whole  of  the  gang.  1  feel  it  my  duty  to  sa}’’  to  you  that,  in 
my  opinion,  your  failure  to  arrest  and  punish  the  perpetrators  of  previous 
criminal  acts  has  encouraged  the  present  horrible  attempt  to  take  the  life  of 
Mr.  Alcock. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


423 


I  have  given  yon  too  many  evidences  of  my  friendship  for  you  to  doubt 
my  good  will  ;  and  as  your  friend,  who  earnestly  wishes  to  see  Japan  peace¬ 
ful,  prosperous,  and  happy,  I  now  say  to  you,  that  if  you  do  not  promptly 
arrest  and  punish  the  authors  of  this  last  deed  of  blood,  that  the  most  lam¬ 
entable  consequences  to  your  country  will  inevitably  ensue  ;  for  if  you  do 
not  punish  these  men,  it  will  show  that  you  do  not  wish  to  do  so.  I  urge 
you  earnestly  to  consider  this  friendly  and  serious  warning. 

I  propose  to  have  an  interview  with  you  in  a  few  days,  at  which  time  I 
will  enter  more  largely  into  details  than  I  can  do  in  a  letter. 

Stated  with  respect  and  courtesy. 

TOWNSEND  HARRIS, 
Minister  Resident  of  the  United  Stales  in  Japan. 

Their  Excellencies  Kudsi  Y amato  Nokami  and  Ando  Fusima  Nokami, 

Ministers  for  Foreign  Affairs,  Sfj.,  S^o.,  fyc.,  Yedo. 


Mr  Harris  to  Mr.  AlcocJc. 

No.  11.]  Legation  of  the  United  States  in  Japan, 

Yedo,  July  8,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  the  honor  to  acknowledge  the  receipt  of  your  letter  of  the  6th 
instant,  giving  me  the  particulars  of  an  attack  made  the  previous  night,  by 
a  band  of  Japanese  assassins,  on  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  legation,  and  inform¬ 
ing  me  that  Mr.  Oliphant,  secretary  of  her  Britannic  Majesty’s  legation,  and 
Mr.  Morrison,  consul  for  Nagasaki,  were  wounded  in  the  melee  which  ensued, 
and  adding  the  gratifying  intelligence  that  you  had,  providentially,  escaped 
any  bodily  injury. 

I  cannot  conceal  from  you  the  horror  and  indignation  which  the  atrocious 
attempt  on  your  life  excites  in  my  mind,  exceeding,  as  it  does,  in  the  bold¬ 
ness  of  its  design  and  in  the  extent  of  its  intended  slaughter,  all  previous 
essays  of  the  kind. 

In  the  nineteen  months  that  followed  the  residence  of  the  foreign  represen¬ 
tatives  in  this  city,  six  distinct  outrages  were  perpetrated  on  the  persons  of 
foreigners.  Yet,  up  to  this  day,  not  one  of  the  persons  engaged  in  those  crim¬ 
inal  acts  has  been  made  to  answer  for  his  crime.  The  Japanese  ministers 
have  reiterated  the  assurance  of  their  anxious  desire  to  arrest  and  punish  the 
offenders  in  question,  but  have  declared  their  inability  to  identify  them.  In 
the  present  case  no  such  plea  can  be  set  up,  for  two  of  your  assailants  are 
prisoners,  and  a  pocket-book  found  on  the  ground  near  your  legation  contains 
a  list  of  fourteen  of  the  gang.  With  these  two  sources  of  information  in 
their  possession,  there  cannot  be  an}7  difficulty  in  ascertaining  the  names  of 
the  whole  band,  and  their  consequent  arrest  and  punishment. 

Should  this  government  fail  in  its  duty  in  the  present  case,  it  will  be 
almost  conclusive  that  it  is  either  unable  or  unwilling  to  give  us  that  pro¬ 
tection  which  the  punishment  of  crime  would  secure  by  the  repression  of 
criminal  designs,  and  it  will  then  become  a  matter  of  serious  consideration 
what  line  of  conduct  should  be  adopted  to  secure  to  us  those  rights  which 
we  have  guaranteed  to  us  by  our  solemn  treaty  stipulations. 

I  have  addressed  a  letter  to  the  Japanese  ministers  for  foreign  affairs  in  the 
sense  of  the  foregoing,  and  I  have  pointedly  shown  them  that  any  failure 
on  their  part  at  the  present  crisis  will  greatly  endanger  the  peace  of  their 
country. 

I  propose  to  have  an  interview  with  the  ministers  in  this  behalf,  when  1 
intend  to  urge  upon  them  the  necessity  that  exists  for  their  action  in  this 
matter. 

In  this  connexion  I  beg  to  say  that  if  you  intend  to  have  an  interview  with 
the  ministers  shortly,  I  will  defer  mine  until  after  yours  has  taken  place. 


424 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  renew  to  you  my  cordial  congratulations  on  your  truly  providential 
escape  from  a  daring  and  almost  successful  attempt  on  your  life. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

TOWNSEND  HARRIS, 

Minister  resident  of  the  United  States  in  Japan. 
Rutherford  Alcock,  Esq.,  C.  B., 

Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Envoy  Ext'y  and  Minister  Plen'y  in  Yedo. 


Mr.  Alcock  to  Mr.  Harris. 

No.  31.]  Her  Majesty’s  Legation, 

Yedo,  July  8,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  to  thank  you  for  the  congratulations  of  escape  from  the  assas¬ 
sins,  conveyed  in  your  letter  of  this  date,  and  the  expression  of  your  views 
upon  the  present  conjuncture,  in  which  I  am  glad  to  say  there  is  a  general 
accordance  with  my  own. 

If  there  be  any  divergence,  it  is  in  the  absence  of  all  hope  on  my  part  that 
the  Japanese  government  will  behave  otherwise  on  this  than  on  every  for¬ 
mer  occasion  of  the  like  nature.  They  have  shown  great  supineness  and 
indifference  hitherto,  and  appear  wholly  unconscious  of  the  gravity  of  the 
circumstances  and  the  atrocious  nature  of  the  outrage  offered  to  the  flag. 

I  had  proposed  seeing  the  ministers  to-morrow,  but  since  the  event  of  the 
5tli  I  have  thought  it  better  to  wait  an  answer  to  a  letter  which  I  addressed 
them,  urging  them  to  give  such  full  satisfaction  as  should  relieve  them  of  all 
charge  of  complicity  or  indifference. 

I  expect  Admiral  Hope  here  also  in  a  few  days,  which  may  further  induce 
me  to  postpone  an  interview.  If  you  wish  to  see  the  ministers,  therefore,  I 
beg  I  may  not  be  a  cause  of  delay. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  sir,  your  most  obedient  humble  servant, 

RUTHERFORD  ALCOCK, 

Her  Britannic  Majesty's  Envoy  Ext'y  and  Minister  Blent' y  in  Japan. 

Townsend  Harris,  Esq.,  §c.,  §c.,  §c., 

United  States  Legation,  Yedo. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Harris. 

No.  23.]  Department  of  State, 

Washington,  October  21,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  despatch  of  the  9th  of  July  (No.  28)  has  been  received. 

The  assaults  committed  upon  the  minister  of  Great  Britain  and  the  other 
members  of  that  legation,  in  violation  of  express  treaty,  of  the  laws  of  na¬ 
tions,  and  of  the  principles  of  common  humanity,  have  excited  a  deep  con¬ 
cern  on  the  part  of  the  President. 

Your  prompt,  earnest,  and  decided  proceedings  in  aid  of  the  just  desire  of 
her  Britannic  Majesty’s  minister  to  obtain  adequate  satisfaction  for  that  out¬ 
rage  meet  his  emphatic  approval.  I  have  lost  no  time  in  assuring  the  British 
government  directly  of  the  willingness  of  the  United  States  to  co-operate 
with  it  in  any  judicious  measure  it  may  suggest  to  insure  safety  hereafter  to 
diplomatic  and  consular  representatives  of  the  western  powers  in  Japan 
with  due  respect  to  the  sovereignties  in  whose  behalf  their  exposure  to  such 
grave  perils  is  incurred. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Townsend  Harris,  Esq.,  fyc.,  §c.,  fyc.,  Yedo. 


CORRESPONDENCE 


RELATIVE  TO  THE  CASE  OF 


MESSRS.  MASON  AND  SLIDELL. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Adams. 

[Extract  ] 

Department  of  State, 
Washington ,  November  30,  1861. 

Sir:  Your  confidential  note  of  tlie  15tli  of  November,  not  marked  as  a  des¬ 
patch,  has  been  submitted  to  the  President,  and  I  hasten  to  reply  to  it  in  time 
for  the  Wednesday’s  mail. 

No  minister  ever  spoke  or  acted  more  wisely  m  a  crisis  which  excited  deep 
public  solicitude  than  you  did  on  the  occasion  of  the  lord  mayor’s  dinner.  We 
are  impressed  very  favorably  by  Lord  Palmerston’s  conversation  with  you.  You 
spoke  the  simple  fact  when  you  told  him  that  the  life  of  this  insurrection  is  sus¬ 
tained  by  its  hopes  of  recognition  in  Great  Britain  and  in  Prance.  It  would 
perish  in  ninety  days  if  those  hopes  should  cease.  I  have  never  for  a  moment 
believed  that  such  a  recognition  could  take  place  without  producing  immediately 
a  war  between  the  United  States  and  all  the  recognizing  powers.  I  have  not 
supposed  it  possible  that  the  British  government  could  fail  to  see  this ;  and  at 
the  same  time  I  have  sincerely  believed  the  British  government  must,  in  its  in¬ 
most  heart,  be  as  averse  from  such  a  war  as  I  know  this  government  is. 

I  am  sure  that  this  government  has  carefully  avoided  giving  any  cause  of 
offence  or  irritation  to  Great  Britain.  But  it  has  seemed  to  me  that  the  British 
government  has  been  inattentive  to  the  currents  that  seemed  to  be  bringing  the 
two  countries  into  collision. 


# 


# 


I  infer  from  Lord  Palmerston’s  remark  that  the  British  government  is  now 
awake  to  the  importance  of  averting  possible  conflict,  and  disposed  to  confer  and 
act  with  earnestness  to  that  end.  If  so,  we  are  disposed  to  meet  them  in  the 
same  spirit,  as  a  nation  chiefly  of  British  lineage,  sentiments,  and  sympathies — 
a  civilized  and  humane  nation — a  Christian  people. 

Since  that  conversation  was  held  Captain  Wilkes,  in  the  steamer  San  Jacinto, 
has  boarded  a  British  colonial  steamer  and  taken  from  her  deck  two  insurgents 
who  were  proceeding  to  Europe  on  an  errand  of  treason  against  their  own  coun¬ 
try.  This  is  a  new  incident,  unknown  to  and  unforeseen,  at  least  in  its  circum¬ 
stances,  by  Lord  Palmerston.  It  is  to  be  met  and  disposed  of  by  the  two  gov¬ 
ernments,  if  possible,  in  the  spirit  to  which  I  have  adverted.  Lord  Lyons  has 
prudently  refrained  from  opening  the  subject  to  me,  as,  I  presume,  waiting 
instructions  from  home.  We  have  done  nothing  on  the  subject  to  anticipate 
the  discussion,  and  we  have  not  furnished  you  with  any  explanations.  AYe 
adhere  to  that  course  now,  because  we  think  it  more  prudent  that  the  ground 
taken  by  the  British  government  should  be  first  made  known  to  us  here,  and 
that  the  discussion,  if  there  must  be  one,  shall  be  had  here.  It  is  proper,  how¬ 
ever,  that  you  should  know  one  fact  in  the  case,  without  indicating  that  we 
attach  much  importance  to  it,  namely,  that,  in  the  capture  of  Messrs.  Mason 
and  Slidell  on  board  a  British  vessel,  Captain  Wilkes  having  acted  without  any 
instructions  from  the  government,  the  subject  is  therefore  free  from  the  embar¬ 
rassment  which  might  have  resulted  if  the  act  had  been  specially  directed  by  us. 


426 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


I  trust  that  the  British  government  will  consider  the  subject  in  a  friendly 
temper,  and  it  may  expect  the  best  disposition  on  the  part  of  this  government. 

Although  this  is  a  confidential  note,  I  shall  not  object  to  your  reading  it  to 
Earl  Russell  and  Lord  Palmerston  if  you  deem  it  expedient. 

I  am,  sir,  your  obedient  servant, 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Charles  Francis  Adams,  Esq.,  fyc.,  fye.,  fyc. 


Earl  Russell  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Foreign  Office,  November  30,  1861. 

My  Lord:  Intelligence  of  a  very  grave  nature  has  reached  her  Majesty’s 
government. 

This  intelligence  was  conveyed  officially  to  the  knowledge  of  the  admiralty 
by  Commander  Williams,  agent  for  mails  on  board  the  contract  steamer  Trent. 

It  appears  from  the  letter  of  Commander  Williams,  dated  “Royal  Mail  Con¬ 
tract  Packet  Trent,  at  sea,  November  9,”  that  the  Trent  left  Havana  on 
the  7th  instant,  with  her  Majesty’s  mails  for  England,  having  on  board  nu¬ 
merous  passengers.  Commander  Williams  states  that  shortly  after  noon  on  the 
8th  a  steamer  having  the  appearance  of  a  man-of-war,  but  not  showing  colors, 
was  observed  ahead.  On  nearing  her  at  1.15  p.  m.  she  fired  a  round  shot  from 
her  pivot-gun  across  the  bows  of  the  Trent,  and  showed  American  colors. 
While  the  Trent  was  approaching  her  slowly  the  American  vessel  discharged 
a  shell  across  the  bows  of  the  Trent,  exploding  half  a  cable’s  length  ahead  of 
her.  The  Trent  then  stopped,  and  an  officer  with  a  large  armed  guard  of  ma¬ 
rines  boarded  her.  The  officer  demanded  a  list  of  the  passengers ;  and,  com¬ 
pliance  with  this  demand  being  refused,  the  officer  said  he  had  orders  to  arrest 
Messrs.  Mason,  Slidell,  McFarland,  and  Eustis,  and  that  he  had  sure  information 
of  their  being  passengers  in  the  Trent.  While  some  parley  was  going  on  upon 
this  matter,  Mr.  Slidell  stepped  forward  and  told  the  American  officer  that  the 
four  persons  he  had  named  were  then  standing  before  him.  The  commander  of 
the  Trent  and  Commander  Williams  protested  against  the  act  of  taking  by  force 
out  of  the  Trent  these  four  passengers,  then  under  the  protection  of  the  British 
flag.  But  the  San  Jacinto  was  at  that  time  only  two  hundred  yards  from  the 
Trent,  her  ship’s  company  at  quarters,  her  ports  open,  and  tompions  out. 
Resistance  was  therefore  out  of  the  question,  and  the  four  gentlemen  before 
named  were  forcibly  taken  out  of  the  ship.  A  further  demand  was  made  that 
the  commander  of  the  Trent  should  proceed  on  board  the  San  Jacinto,  but  he 
said  he  would  not  go  unless  forcibly  compelled  likewise,  and  this  demand  was 
not  insisted  upon. 

It  thus  appears  that  certain  individuals  have  been  forcibly  taken  from  on  board 
a  British  vessel,  the  ship  of  a  neutral  power,  while  such  vessel  was  pursuing  a 
lawful  and  innocent  voyage — an  act  of  violence  which  was  an  affront  to  the 
British  flag  and  a  violation  of  international  law. 

Her  Majesty’s  government,  bearing  in  mind  the  friendly  relations  which  have 
long  subsisted  between  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States,  are  willing  to  be¬ 
lieve  that  the  United  States  naval  officer  who  committed  the  aggression  was  not 
acting  in  compliance  with  any  authority  from  his  government,  or  that  if  he  con¬ 
ceived  himself  to  be  so  authorized  he  greatly  misunderstood  the  instructions 
which  he  had  received.  For  the  government  of  the  United  States  must  be  fully 
aware  that  the  British  government  could  not  allow  such  an  affront  to  the  national 
honor  to  pass  without  full  reparation,  and  her  Majesty’s  government  are  unwil¬ 
ling  to  believe  that  it  could  be  the  deliberate  intention  of  the  government  of  the 


COKKESPONDENCE. 


427 


United  States  unnecessarily  to  force  into  discussion  between  the  two  govern¬ 
ments  a  question  of  so  grave  a  character,  and  with  regard  to  which  the  whole 
British  nation  would  he  sure  to  entertain  such  unanimity  of  feeling. 

Her  Majesty’s  government,  therefore,  trust  that  when  this  matter  shall  have 
been  brought  under  the  consideration  of  the  government  of  the  United  States 
that  government  will,  of  its  own  accord,  offer  to  the  British  government  such 
redress  as  alone  could  satisfy  the  British  nation,  namely,  the  liberation  of  the 
four  gentlemen  and  their  delivery  to  your  lordship,  in  order  that  they  may  again 
be  placed  under  British  protection,  and  a  suitable  apology  for  the  aggression 
which  has  been  committed. 

Should  these  terms  not  be  offered  by  Mr.  Seward  you  will  propose  them  to 

him. 

You  are  at  liberty  to  read  this  despatch  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  and,  if  he 
shall  desire  it,  you  will  give  him  a  copy  of  it. 

I  am,  &c., 


BUSSELL. 


The  Lord  Lyons,  K.  C.  B.,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Lord  Lyons. 

Department  of  State, 
Washington ,  December  26,  1861. 

My  Lord  :  Earl  Bussell’s  despatch  of  November  the  30th,  a  copy  of  which 
you  have  left  with  me  at  my  request,  is  of  the  following  effect,  namely : 

That  a  letter  of  Commander  Williams,  dated  Boyal  Mail  Contract  Packet- 
boat  Trent,  at  sea,  November  9th,  states  that  that  vessel  left  Havana  on  the  7th 
of  November,  with  her  Majesty’s  mails  for  England,  having  on  board  numerous 
passengers.  Shortly  after  noon,  on  the  8th  of  November,  the  United  States 
war  steamer  San  Jacinto,  Captain  Wilkes,  not  showing  colors,  was  observed  ahead. 
That  steamer,  on  being  neared  by  the  Trent,  at  one  o’clock  fifteen  minutes  in  the 
afternoon,  fired  a  round  shot  from  a  pivot-gun  across  her  bows,  and  showed 
American  colors.  While  the  Trent  was  approaching  slowly  towards  the  San 
Jacinto  she  discharged  a  shell  across  the  Trent’s  bows,  which  exploded  at  half 
a  cable’s  length  before  her.  The  Trent  then  stopped,  and  an  officer  with  a 
large  armed  guard  of  marines  boarded  her.  The  officer  said  he  had  orders  to 
arrest  Messrs.  Mason,  Slidell,  McFarland,  and  Eustis,  and  had  sure  information 
that  they  were  passengers  in  the  Trent.  While  some  parley  was  going  on  upon 
this  matter,  Mr.  Slidell  stepped  forward  and  said  to  the  American  officer  that 
the  four  persons  he  had  named  were  standing  before  him.  The  commander  of 
the  Trent  and  Commander  Williams  protested  against  the  act  of  taking  those 
four  passengers  out  of  the  Trent,  they  then  being  under  the  protection  of  the 
British  flag.  But  the  San  Jacinto  was  at  this  time  only  two  hundred  yards 
distant,  her  ship’s  company  at  quarters,  her  ports  open  and  tompions  out,  and 
so  resistance  was  out  of  the  question.  ’  The  four  persons  before  named  were 
then  forcibly  taken  out  of  the  ship.  A  further  demand  was  made  that  the  com¬ 
mander  of  the  Trent  should  proceed  on  board  the  San  Jacinto,  but  lie  said  he 
would  not  go  unless  forcibly  compelled  likewise,  and  this  demand  was  not  in¬ 
sisted  upon. 

Upon  this  statement  Earl  Bussell  remarks  that  it  thus  appears  that  certain 
individuals  have  been  forcibly  taken  from  on  board  a  British  vessel,  the  ship  of 
a  neutral  power,  while  that  vessel  was  pursuing  a  lawful  and  innocent  voyage — 
an  act  of  violence  which  was  an  affront  to  the  British  flag  and  a  violation  of 
international  law. 

Earl  Bussell  next  says  that  her  Majesty’s  government,  bearing  in  mind  the 


428 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


friendly  relations  which  have  long  subsisted  between  Great  Britain  and  the 
United  States,  are  willing  to  believe  that  the  naval  officer  who  committed  this 
aggression  was  not  acting  in  compliance  with  any  authority  from  his  govern¬ 
ment,  or  that,  if  he  conceived  himself  to  be  so  authorized,  he  greatly  misunder¬ 
stood  the  instructions  which  he  had  received. 

Earl  Russell  argues  that  the  United  States  must  be  fully  aware  that  the 
British  government  could  not  allow  such  an  affront  to  the  national  honor  to  pass 
without  full  reparation,  and  they  are  willing  to  believe  that  it  could  not  be  the 
deliberate  intention  of  the  government  of  the  United  States  unnecessarily  to 
force  into  discussion  between  the  two  governments  a  question  of  so  grave  a  char¬ 
acter,  and  with  regard  to  which  the  whole  British  nation  would  be  sure  to  enter¬ 
tain  such  unanimity  of  feeling. 

Earl  Russell,  resting  upon  the  statement  and  the  argument  which  I  have  thus 
recited,  closes  with  saying  that  her  Majesty’s  government  trust  that  when  this 
matter  shall  have  been  brought  under  the  consideration  of  the  government  of  the 
United  States,  it  will,  of  its  own  accord,  offer  to  the  British  government  such 
redress  as  alone  could  satisfy  the  British  nation,  namely,  the  liberation  of  the 
four  prisoners  taken  from  the  Trent,  and  their  delivery  to  your  lordship,  in  order 
that  they  may  again  be  placed  under  British  protection,  and  a  suitable  apology 
for  the  aggression  which  lias  been  committed.  Earl  Russell  finally  instructs 
you  to  propose  those  terms  to  me,  if  I  should  not  first  offer  them  on  the  part  of 
the  government. 

This  despatch  has  been  submitted  to  the  President. 

The  British  government  has  rightly  conjectured,  what  it  is  now  my  duty  to 
state,  that  Captain  Wilkes,  in  conceiving  and  executing  the  proceeding  in  ques¬ 
tion,  acted  upon  his  own  suggestions  of  duty,  without  any  direction  or  instruc¬ 
tion,  or  even  foreknowledge  of  it,  on  the  part  of  this  government.  No  direc¬ 
tions  had  been  given  to  him,  or  any  other  naval  officer,  to  arrest  the  four  persons 
named,  or  any  of  them,  on  the  Trent  or  on  any  other  British  vessel,  or  on  any 
other  neutral  vessel,  at  the  place  where  it  occurred  or  elsewhere.  The  British 
government  will  justly  infer  from  these  facts  that  the  United  States  not  only 
have  had  no  purpose,  but  even  no  thought,  of  forcing  into  discussion  the  ques¬ 
tion  which  has  arisen,  or  any  other  which  could  affect  in  any  way  the  sensibili¬ 
ties  of  the  British  nation. 

It  is  true  that  a  round  shot  was  fired  by  the  San  Jacinto  from  her  pivot-gun 
when  the  Trent  was  distantly  approaching.  But,  as  the  facts  have  been  reported 
to  this  government,  the  shot  was  nevertheless  intentionally  fired  in  a  direction 
so  obviously  divergent  from  the  course  of  the  Trent  as  to  be  quite  as  harmless 
as  a  blank  shot,  while  it  should  be  regarded  as  a  signal. 

So  also  we  learn  that  the  Trent  was  not  approaching  the  San  Jacinto  slowly 
when  the  shell  was  fired  across  her  bows,  but,  on  the  contrary,  the  Trent  was, 
or  seemed  to  be,  moving  under  a  full  head  of  steam,  as  if  with  a  purpose  to  pass 
the  San  Jacinto. 

We  are  informed  also  that  the  boarding  officer  (Lieutenant  Fairfax)  did  not 
board  the  Trent  with  a  large  armed  guard,  but  he  left  his  marines  in  his  boat  when 
he  entered  the  Trent.  He  stated  his  instructions  from  Captain  Wilkes  to  search 
for  the  four  persons  named,  in  a  respectful  and  courteous,  though  decided  man¬ 
ner,  and  he  asked  the  captain  of  tlie  Trent  to  show  his  passenger  list,  which 
was  refused.  The  lieutenant,  as  we  are  informed,  did  not  employ  absolute  force 
in  transferring  the  passengers,  but  he  used  just  so  much  as  was  necessary  to 
satisfy  the  parties  concerned  that  refusal  or  resistance  would  be  unavailing. 

So,  also,  we  are  informed  that  the  captain  of  the  Trent  was  not  at  any  time 
or  in  any  way  required  to  go  on  board  the  San  Jacinto. 

These  modifications  of  the  case,  as  presented  by  Commander  Williams,  are 
based  upon  our  official  reports. 

I  have  now  to  remind  your  lordship  of  some  facts  which  doubtlessly  were 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


429 


omitted  b y  Earl  Russell,  with  the  very  proper  and  becoming  motive  of  allowing 
them  to  be  brought  into  the  case,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  in  the  way 
most  satisfactory  to  this  government.  These  facts  are,  that  at  the  time  the 
transaction  occurred  an  insurrection  was  existing  in  the  United  States  which 
this  government  was  engaged  in  suppressing  by  the  employment  of  land  and 
naval  forces ;  that  in  regard  to  this  domestic  strife  the  United  States  considered 
Great  Britain  as  a  friendly  power,  while  she  had  assumed  for  herself  the  attitude 
of  a  neutral ;  and  that  Spain  was  considered  in  the  same  light,  and  had  assumed 
the  same  attitude  as  Great  Britain. 

It  had  been  settled  by  correspondence  that  the  United  States  and  Great 
Britain  mutually  recognized  as  applicable  to  this  local  strife  these  two  articles  of 
the  declaration  made  by  the  Congress  of  Paris  in  18-56,  namely,  that  the  neutral 
or  friendly  flag  should  cover  enemy’s  goods  not  contraband  of  war,  and  that 
neutral  goods  not  contraband  of  war  are  not  liable  to  capture  under  an  enemy’s 
flag.  These  exceptions  of  contraband  from  favor  were  a  negative  acceptance  by 
the  parties  of  the  rule  hitherto  everywhere  recognized  as  a  part  of  the  law  of 
nations,  that  whatever  is  contraband  is  liable  to  capture  and  confiscation  in  all 
cases. 


James  M.  Mason  and  E.  J.  McFarland  are  citizens  of  the  United  States  and 
residents  of  Virginia.  John  Slidell  and  George  Eustis  are  citizens  of  the  United 
States  and  residents  of  Louisiana.  It  was  well  known  at  Havana  when  these 
parties  embarked  in  the  Trent  that  James  31.  Mason  was  proceeding  to  England 
in  the  affected  character  of  a  minister  plenipotentiary  to  the  court  of  St.  James, 
under  a  pretended  commission  from  Jefferson  Davis,  who  had  assumed  to  be 
president  of  the  insurrectionary  party  in  the  United  States,  and  E.  J.  McFarland 
was  going  with  him  in  a  like  unreal  character  of  secretary  of  legation  to  the  pre¬ 
tended  mission.  John  Slidell,  in  similar  circumstances,  was  going  to  Paris  as  a 
pretended  minister  to  the  Emperor  of  the  French,  and  George  Eustis  was  the 
chosen  secretary  of  legation  for  that  simulated  mission.  The  fact  that  these  per¬ 
sons  had  assumed  such  characters  has  been  since  avowed  by  the  same  Jefferson 
Davis  in  a  pretended  message  to  an  unlawful  and  insurrectionary  Congress.  It 
was,  as  we  think,  rightly  presumed  that  these  ministers  bore  pretended  creden¬ 
tials  and  instructions,  and  such  papers  are  in  the  law  known  as  despatches.  We 
are  informed  by  our  consul  at  Paris  that  these  despatches,  having  escaped  the 
search  of  the  Trent,  were  actually  conveyed  and  delivered  to  emissaries  of  the 
insurrection  in  England.  Although  it  is  not  essential,  yet  it  is  proper  to  state, 
as  I  do  also  upon  information  and  belief,  that  the  owner  and  agent,  and  all  the 
officers  of  the  Trent,  including  Commander  Williams,  had  knowledge  of  the 
assumed  characters  and  purposes  of  the  persons  before  named  when  they  em¬ 
barked  on  that  vessel. 

Your  lordship  will  now  perceive  that  the  case  before  us,  instead  of  presenting 
a  merely  flagrant  act  of  violence  on  the  part  of  Captain  Wilkes,  as  might  well 
be  inferred  from  the  incomplete  statement  of  it  that  went  up  to  the  British  gov¬ 
ernment,  was  undertaken  as  a  simple  legal  and  customary  belligerent  proceeding 
by  Captain  Wilkes  to  arrest  and  capture  a  neutral  vessel  engaged  in  carrying 
contraband  of  war  for  the  use  and  benefit  of  the  insurgents. 

The  question  before  us  is,  whether  this  proceeding  was  authorized  by  and  con¬ 
ducted  according  to  the  law  of  nations.  It  involves  the  following  inquiries  : 

1st.  Were  the  persons  named  and  their  supposed  despatches  contraband  ot 
war  ? 

2d.  Might  Captain  Wilkes  lawfully  stop  and  search  the  Trent  for  these  con¬ 
traband  persons  and  despatches? 

3d.  Did  he  exercise  that  right  in  a  lawful  and  proper  manner? 

4th.  Having  found  the  contraband  persons  on  board  and  in  presumed  posses¬ 
sion  of  the  contraband  despatches,  had  he  a  right  to  capture  the  persons  ? 


430 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


5th.  Did  lie  exercise  that  right  of  capture  in  the  manner  allowed  and  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  law  of  nations  ? 

If  all  these  inquiries  shall  he  resolved  in  the  affirmative  the  British  govern¬ 
ment  will  have  no  claim  for  reparation. 

I  address  myself  to  the  first  inquiry,  namely,  were  the  four  persons  mentioned, 
and  their  supposed  despatches,  contraband? 

Maritime  law  so  generally  deals,  as  its  professors  say,  in  rem ,  that  is  with 
property,  and  so  seldom  with  persons,  that  it  seems  a  straining  of  the  term  con¬ 
traband  to  apply  it  to  them.  But  persons,  as  well  as  property,  may  become  con¬ 
traband,  since  the  word  means  broadly  “  contrary  to  proclamation,  prohibited, 
illegal,  unlawful.” 

All  writers  and  judges  pronounce  naval  or  military  persons  in  the  service  of 
the  enemv  contraband.  Mattel  savs  war  allows  us  to  cut  off  from  an  enemy  all 
his  resources,  and  to  hinder  him  from  sending;  ministers  to  solicit  assistance. 
And  Sir  William  Scott  savs  you  may  stop  tlie  ambassador  of  your  enemv  on  his 
passage.  Despatches  are  not  less  clearly  contraband,  and  the  bearers  or  couriers 
who  undertake  to  carry  them  fall  under  the  same  condemnation. 

A  subtlety  might  be  raised  whether  pretended  ministers  of  a  usurping  power, 
not  recognized  as  legal  by  either  the  belligerent  or  the  neutral,  could  be  held  to 
be  contraband.  But  it  would  disappear  on  being  subjected  to  what  is  the  true 
test  in  all  cases — namely,  the  spirit  of  the  law.  Sir  William  Scott,  speaking  of 
civil  magistrates  who  are  arrested  and  detained  as  contraband,  says  : 

“  It  appears  to  me  on  principle  to  be  but  reasonable  that  when  it  is  of  suffi¬ 
cient  importance  to  the  enemy  that  such  persons  shall  be  sent  out  on  the  public 
service  at  the  public  expense,  it  should  afford  equal  ground  of  forfeiture  against 
the  vessel  that  may  be  let  out  for  a  purpose  so  intimately  connected  with  the 
hostile  operations.” 

I  trust  that  I  have  shown  that  the  four  persons  who  were  taken  from  the 
Trent  by  Captain  Wilkes,  and  their  despatches,  were  contraband  of  war. 

The  second  inquiry  is,  whether  Captain  Wilkes  had  a  right  by  the  law  of  na¬ 
tions  to  detain  and  search  the  Trent. 

The  Trent,  though  she  carried  mails,  was  a  contract  or  merchant  vessel — a 
common  carrier  for  hire.  Maritime  law  knows  only  three  classes  of  vessels — 
vessels  of  war,  revenue  vessels,  and  merchant  vessels.  The  Trent  falls  within 
the  latter  class.  Whatever  disputes  have  existed  concerning  a  right  of  visita¬ 
tion  or  search  in  time  of  peace,  none,  it  is  supposed,  has  existed  in  modern  times 
about  the  right  of  a  belligerent  in  time  of  war  to  capture  contraband  in  neutral 
and  even  friendly  merchant  vessels,  and  of  the  right  of  visitation  and  search,  in 
order  to  determine  whether  they  are  neutral,  and  are  documented  as  such  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  law  of  nations. 

I  assume  in  the  present  case  what,  as  I  read  British  authorities,  is  regarded 
bv  Great  Britain  herself  as  true  maritime  law  :  That  the  circumstance  that  the 
Trent  was  proceeding  from  a  neutral  port  to  another  neutral  port  does  not 
modify  the  right  of  the  belligerent  captor. 

The  third  question  is  whether  Captain  Wilkes  exercised  the  right  of  search 
in  a  lawful  and  proper  manner. 

If  any  doubt  hung  over  this  point,  as  the  case  was  presented  in  the  state¬ 
ment  of  it  adopted  by  the  British  government,  I  think  it  must  have  already 
passed  away  before  the  modifications  of  that  statement  which  I  have  already 
submitted. 

I  proceed  to  the  fourth  inquiry,  namely:  Having  found  the  suspected  contra¬ 
band  of  war  on  board  the  Trent,  had  Captain  Wilkes  a  right  to  capture  the 
same  ? 

Such  a  capture  is  the  chief,  if  not  the  only  recognized,  object  of  the  per¬ 
mitted  visitation  and  search.  The  principle  of  the  law  is,  that  the  belligerent 
exposed  to  danger  may  prevent  the  contraband  persons  or  things  from  applying 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


431 


themselves  or  being  applied  to  the  hostile  uses  or  purposes  designed.  The  law 
is  so  very  liberal  in  this  respect  that  when  contraband  is  found  on  board  a  neu¬ 
tral  vessel,  not  only  is  the  contraband  forfeited,  but  the  vessel  which  is  the 
vehicle  of  its  passage  or  transportation,  being  tainted,  also  becomes  contraband, 
and  is  subjected  to  capture  and  confiscation. 

Only  the  fifth  question  remains,  namely:  Did  Captain  Wilkes  exercise  the 
right  of  capturing  the  contraband  in  conformity  with  the  law  of  nations  ? 

It  is  just  here  that  the  difficulties  of  the  case  begin.  What  is  the  manner 
which  the  law  of  nations  prescribes  for  disposing  of  the  contraband  when  you 
have  found  and  seized  it  on  board  of  the  neutral  vessel  ?  The  answer  would  be 
easily  found  if  the  question  were  what  you  shall  do  with  the  contraband  vessel. 
You  must  take  or  send  her  into  a  convenient  port,  and  subject  her  to  a  judicial 
prosecution  there  in  admiralty,  which  will  try  and  decide  the  questions  of  bel¬ 
ligerency,  neutrality,  contraband,  and  capture.  So,  again,  you  would  promptly 
find  the  same  answer  if  the  question  were,  What  is  the  manner  of  proceeding 
prescribed  by  the  law  of  nations  in  regard  to  the  contraband,  if  it  be  property 
or  things  of  material  or  pecuniary  value  ? 

But  the  question  here  concerns  the  mode  of  procedure  in  regard,  not  to  the 
vessel  that  was  carrying  the  contraband,  nor  yet  to  contraband  things  which 
worked  the  forfeiture  of  the  vessel,  but  to  contraband  persons. 

The  books  of  law  are  dumb.  Yet  the  question  is  as  important  as  it  is  diffi¬ 
cult.  First,  the  belligerent  captor  has  a  right  to  prevent  the  contraband  officer, 
soldier,  sailor,  minister,  messenger,  or  courier  from  proceeding  in  his  unlawful 
voyage  and  reaching  the  destined  scene  of  his  injurious  service.  But,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  person  captured  may  be  innocent — that  is,  he  may  not  be  con¬ 
traband.  He,  therefore,  has  a  right  to  a  fair  trial  of  the  accusation  against  him. 
The  neutral  State  that  has  taken  him  under  its  flag  is  bound  to  protect  him  if 
he  is  not  contraband,  and  is  therefore  entitled  to  be  satisfied  upon  that  important 
question.  The  faith  of  that  State  is  pledged  to  his  safety,  if  innocent,  as  its 
justice  is  pledged  to  his  surrender  if  he  is  really  contraband.  Here  are  conflict¬ 
ing  claims,  involving  personal  liberty,  life,  honor,  and  duty.  Here  are  conflict¬ 
ing  national  claims,  involving  welfare,  safety,  honor,  and  empire.  They  require 
a  tribunal  and  a  trial.  The  captors  and  the  captured  are  equals ;  the  neutral 
and  the  belligerent  state  are  equals. 

While  the  law  authorities  were  found  silent,  it  was  suggested  at  an  early  day 
by  this  government  that  you  should  take  the  captured  persons  into  a  convenient 
port,  and  institute  judicial  proceedings  there  to  try  the  controversy.  But  only 
courts  of  admiralty  have  jurisdiction  in  maritime  cases,  and  these  courts  have 
formulas  to  try  only  claims  to  contraband  chattels,  but  none  to  try  claims  con¬ 
cerning  contraband  persons.  The  courts  can  entertain  no  proceedings  and  ren¬ 
der  no  judgment  in  favor  of  or  against  the  alleged  contraband  men. 

It  was  replied  all  this  was  true ;  but  you  can  reach  in  those  courts  a  decision 
which  will  have  the  moral  weight  of  a  judicial  one  by  a  circuitous  proceeding. 
Convey  the  suspected  men,  together  with  the  suspected  vessel,  into  port,  and 
try  there  the  question  whether  the  vessel  is  contraband.  You  can  prove  it  to  be 
so  by  proving  the  suspected  men  to  be  contraband,  and  the  court  must  then  de¬ 
termine  the  vessel  to  be  contraband.  If  the  men  are  not  contraband  the  vessel 
will  escape  condemnation.  Still,  there  is  no  judgment  for  or  against  the  cap¬ 
tured  persons.  But  it  was  assumed  that  there  would  result  from  the  determina¬ 
tion  of  the  court  concerning  the  vessel  a  legal  certainty  concerning  the  character 
of  the  men. 

This  course  of  proceeding  seemed  open  to  many  objections.  It  elevates  the 
incidental  inferior  private  interest  into  the  proper  place  of  the  main  paramount 
public  one,  and  possibly  it  may  make  the  fortunes,  the  safety,  or  the  existence 
of  a  nation  depend  on  the  accidents  of  a  merely  personal  and  pecuniary  litiga¬ 
tion.  Moreover,  when  the  judgment  of  the  prize  court  upon  the  lawfulness  of 


432 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


the  capture  of  the  vessel  is  rendered,  it  really  concludes  nothing,  and  binds 
neither  the  belligerent  state  nor  the  neutral  upon  the  great  question  of  the  dis¬ 
position  to  be  made  of  the  captured  contraband  persons.  That  question  is  still 
to  be  really  determined,  if  at  all,  by  diplomatic  arrangement  or  by  war. 

One  may  well  express  his  surprise  when  told  that  the  law  of  nations  has  fur¬ 
nished  no  more  reasonable,  practical,  and  perfect  mode  than  this  of  determining 
questions  of  such  grave  import  between  sovereign  powers.  The  regret  we  may 
feel  on  the  occasion  is  nevertheless  modified  by  the  reflection  that  the  difficulty 
is  not  altogether  anomalous.  Similar  and  equal  deficiencies  are  found  in  every 
system  of  municipal  law,  especially  in  the  system  which  exists  in  the  greater 
portions  of  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States.  The  title  to  personal  property 
can  hardly  ever  be  resolved  by  a  court  without  resorting  to  the  fiction  that  the 
claimant  has  lost  and  the  possessor  has  found  it,  and  the  title  to  real  estate  is 
disputed  by  real  litigants  under  the  names  of  imaginary  persons.  It  must  be 
confessed,  however,  that  while  all  aggrieved  nations  demand,  and  all  impartial 
ones  concede,  the  need  of  some  form  of  judicial  process  in  determining  the  char¬ 
acters  of  contraband  persons,  no  other  form  than  the  illogical  and  circuitous  one 
thus  described  exists,  nor  has  any  other  yet  been  suggested.  Practically,  there¬ 
fore,  the  choice  is  between  that  judicial  remedy  or  no  judicial  remedy  whatever. 

If  there  be  no  judicial  remedy,  the  result  is  that  the  question  must  be  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  captor  himself,  on  the  deck  of  the  prize  vessel.  Very  grave 
objections  arise  against  such  a  course.  The  captor  is  armed,  the  neutral  is 
unarmed.  The  captor  is  interested,  prejudiced,  and  perhaps  violent;  the  neutral, 
if  truly  neutral,  is  disinterested,  subdued,  and  helpless.  The  tribunal  is  irrespon¬ 
sible,  while  its  judgment  is  carried  into  instant  execution.  The  captured  party 
is  compelled  to  submit,  though  bound  by  no  legal,  moral,  or  treaty  obligation  to 
acquiesce.  Reparation  is  distant  and  problematical,  and  depends  at  last  on  the 
justice,  magnanimity,  or  weakness  of  the  state  in  whose  behalf  and  by  whose 
authority  the  capture  was  made.  Out  of  these  disputes  reprisals  and  wars  neces¬ 
sarily  aiise,  and  these  are  so  frequent  and  destructive  that  it  may  well  be  doubted 
whether  this  form  of  remedy  is  not  a  greater  social  evil  than  all  that  could  follow 
if  the  belligerent  right  of  search  were  universally  renounced  and  abolished  for- 
ever.  But  carry  the  case  one  step  farther.  What  if  the  state  that  has  made  the 
capture  unreasonably  refuse  to  hear  the  complaint  of  the  neutral  or  to  redress  it? 
In  that  case,  the  very  act  of  capture  would  be  an  act  of  war — of  war  begun 
without  notice,  and  possibly  entirely  without  provocation. 

I  think  all  unprejudiced  minds  will  agree  that,  imperfect  as  the  existing  judi¬ 
cial  remedy  may  be  supposed  to  be,  it  would  be,  as  a  general  practice,  better  to 
follow  it  than  to  adopt  the  summary  one  of  leaving  the  decision  with  the  captor, 
and  relying  upon  diplomatic  debates  to  review  his  decision.  .Practically,  it  is  a 
question  of  choice  between  law,  with  its  imperfections  and  delays,  and  war,  with 
its  evils  and  desolations.  Xor  is  it  ever  to  be  forgotten  that  neutrality,  honestly 
and  justly  preserved,  is  always  the  harbinger  of  peace,  and  therefore  is  the  com¬ 
mon  interest  of  nations,  which  is  only  saying  that  it  is  the  interest  of  humanity 
itself. 

At  the  same  time  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  it  may  sometimes  happen  that  the 
judicial  remedy  will  become  impossible,  as  by  the  shipwreck  of  the  prize  vessel, 
or  other  circumstances  which  excuse  the  captor  from  sending  or  taking  her  into 
port  for  confiscation.  In  such  a  case  the  right  of  the  captor  to  the  custody  of 
the  captured  persons,  and  to  dispose  of  them,  if  they  are  really  contraband,  so 
as  to  defeat  their  unlawful  purposes,  cannot  reasonably  be  denied.  What  rule 
shall  be  applied  in  such  a  case  ?  Clearly,  the  captor  ought  to  be  required  to 
show  that  the  failure  of  the  judicial  remedy  results  from  circumstances  beyond 
his  control,  and  without  his  fault.  Otherwise,  he  would  be  allowed  to  derive 
advantage  from  a  wrongful  act  of  his  own. 

In  the  present  case,  Captain  Wilkes,  after  capturing  the  contraband  persons 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


433 


and  making  prize  of  the  Trent  in  what  seems  to  he  a  perfectly  lawful  manner, 
instead  of  sending  her  into  port,  released  her  from  the  capture,  and  permitted 
her  to  proceed  with  her  whole  cargo  upon  her  voyage.  He  thus  effectually  pre¬ 
vented  the  judicial  examination  which  might  otherwise  have  occurred. 

If,  now,  the  capture  of  the  contraband  persons  and  the  capture  of  the  contra¬ 
band  vessel  are  to  be  regarded,  not  as  two  separate  or  distinct  transactions  under 
the  law  of  nations,  but  as  one  transaction,  one  capture  only,  then  it  follows  that 
the  capture  in  this  case  was  left  unfinished,  or  was  abandoned.  Whether  the 
United  States  have  a  right  to  retain  the  chief  public  benefits  of  it,  namely,  the 
custody  of  the  captured  persons  on  proving  them  to  be  contraband,  will  depend 
upon  the  preliminary  question  whether  the  leaving  of  the  transaction  unfinished 
was  necessary,  or  whether  it  was  unnecessary,  and  therefore  voluntary.  If  it 
was  necessary,  Great  Britain,  as  we  suppose,  must,  of  course,  waive  the  defect, 
and  the  consequent  failure  of  the  judicial  remedy.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not 
seen  how  the  United  States  can  insist  upon  her  waiver  of  that  judicial  remedy, 
if  the  defect  of  the  capture  resulted  from  an  act  of  Captain  Wilkes,  which  would 
be  a  fault  on  their  own  side, 

Captain  Wilkes  has  presented  to  this  government  his  reasons  for  releasing  the 
Trent.  “  I  forbore  to  seize  her,”  he  says,  “  in  consequence  of  my  being  so  re¬ 
duced  in  officers  and  crew,  and  the  derangement  it  would  cause  innocent  persons, 
there  being  a  large  number  of  passengers  who  would  have  been  put  to  great 
loss  and  inconvenience,  as  well  as  disappointment,  from  the  interruption  it  would 
have  caused  them  in  not  being  able  to  join  the  steamer  from  St.  Thomas  to 
Europe.  I  therefore  concluded  to  sacrifice  the  interest  of  my  officers  and  crew 
in  the  prize,  and  suffered  her  to  proceed  after  the  detention  necessary  to  effect 
the  transfer  of  those  commissioners,  considering  I  had  obtained  the  important 
end  I  had  in  view,  and  which  affected  the  interest  of  our  country  and  interrupted 
the  action  of  that  of  the  confederates.” 

I  shall  consider,  first,  how  these  reasons  ousdit  to  affect  the  action  of  this 
government ;  and  secondly,  how  they  ought  to  be  expected  to  affect  the  action 
of  Great  Britain. 

The  reasons  are  satisfactory  to  this  government,  so  far  as  Captain  Wilkes  is 
concerned.  It  could  not  desire  that  the  San  Jacinto,  her  officers  and  crew, 
should  be  exposed  to  danger  and  loss  by  weakening  their  number  to  detach  a 
prize  crew  to  go  on  board  the  Trent.  Still  less  could  it  disavow  the  humane 
motive  of  preventing  inconveniences,  losses,  and  perhaps  disasters,  to  the  several 
hundred  innocent  passengers  found  on  board  the  prize  vessel.  Nor  could  this 
government  perceive  any  ground  for  questioning  the  fact  that  these  reasons, 
though  apparently  incongruous,  did  operate  in  the  mind  of  Captain  Wilkes  and 
determine  him  to  release  the  Trent.  Human  actions  generally  proceed  upon 
mingled,  and  sometimes  conflicting  motives.  He  measured  the  sacrifices  which 
this  decision  would  cost.  It  manifestly,  however,  did  not  occur  to  him  that  be¬ 
yond  the  sacrifice  of  the  private  interests  (as  he  calls  them)  of  his  officers  and 
crew,  there  might  also  possibly  be  a  sacrifice  even  of  the  chief  and  public  object 
of  his  capture,  namely,  the  right  of  his  government  to  the  custody  and  dispo¬ 
sition  of  the  captured  persons.  This  government  cannot  censure  him  for  this 
oversight.  It  confesses  that  the  whole  subject  came  unforeseen  upon  the  govern¬ 
ment,  as  doubtless  it  did  upon  him.  Its  present  convictions  on  the  point  in 
question  are  the  result  of  deliberate  examination  and  deduction  now  made,  and 
not  of  any  impressions  previously  formed. 

Nevertheless,  the  question  now  is,  not  whether  Captain  Wilkes  is  justified  to 
his  government  in  what  he  did,  hut  what  is  the  present  view  of  the  government 
as  to  the  effect  of  what  he  has  done.  Assuming  now,  for  argument’s  sake  only, 
that  the  release  of  the  Trent,  if  voluntary,  involved  a  waiver  of  the  claim  of 
the  government  to  hold  the  captured  persons,  the  United  States  could  in  that 
case  have  no  hesitation  in  saying  that  the  act  which  has  thus  already  been  ap- 

28 


434 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


proved  by  the  government  must  be  allowed  to  draw  its  legal  consequence  after 
it.  It  is  of  the  very  nature  of  a  gift  or  a  charity  that  the  giver  cannot,  after 
the  exercise  of  his  benevolence  is  past,  recall  or  modify  its  benefits. 

We  are  thus  brought  directly  to  the  question  whether  we  are  entitled  to  re¬ 
gard  the  release  of  the  Trent  as  involuntary,  or  whether  we  are  obliged  to  con¬ 
sider  that  it  was  voluntary.  Clearly  the  release  would  have  been  involuntary 
had  it  been  made  solely  upon  the  first  ground  assigned  for  it  by  Captain 
Wilkes,  namely,  a  want  of  a  sufficient  force  to  send  the  prize  vessel  into  port 
for  adjudication.  It  is  not  the  duty  of  a  captor  to  hazard  his  own  vessel  in 
order  to  secure  a  judicial  examination  to  the  captured  party.  No  large  prize 
crew,  however,  is  legally  necessary,  for  it  is  the  duty  of  the  captured  party  to 
acquiesce,  and  go  willingly  before  the  tribunal  to  whose  jurisdiction  it  appeals. 
If  the  captured  party  indicate  purposes  to  employ  means  of  resistance  which 
the  captor  cannot  with  probable  safety  to  himself  overcome,  he  may  properly 
leave  the  vessel  to  go  forward ;  and  neither  she  nor  the  State  she  represents  can 
ever  afterwards  justly  object  that  the  captor  deprived  her  of  the  judicial  remedy 
to  which  she  was  entitled. 

But  the  second  reason  assigned  by  Captain  Wilkes  for  releasing  the  Trent 
differs  from  the  first.  At  best,  therefore,  it  must  be  held  that  Captain  Wilkes, 
as  he  explains  himself,  acted  from  combined  sentiments  of  prudence  and  gene¬ 
rosity,  and  so  that  the  release  of  the  prize  vessel  was  not  strictly  necessary  or 
involuntary. 

Secondly.  How  ought  we  to  expect  these  explanations  by  Captain  Wilkes  of 
his  reasons  for  leaving  the  capture  incomplete  to  affect  the  action  of  the  British 
government  ? 

The  observation  upon  this  point  which  first  occurs  is,  that  Captain  Wilkes’s 
explanations  were  not  made  to  the  authorities  of  the  captured  vessel.  If  made 
known  to  them,  they  might  have  approved  and  taken  the  release  upon  the  con¬ 
dition  of  waiving  a  judicial  investigation  of  the  whole  transaction,  or  they  might 
have  refused  to  accept  the  release  upon  that  condition. 

But  the  case  is  one  not  with  them,  but  with  the  British  government.  If  we 
claim  that  Great  Britain  ought  not  to  insist  that  a  judicial  trial  has  been  lost 
because  we  voluntarily  released  the  offending  vessel  out  of  consideration  for  her 
innocent  passengers,  I  do  not  see  how  she  is  to  be  bound  to  acquiesce  in  the 
decision  which  was  thus  made  by  us  without  necessity  on  our  part,  and  without 
knowledge  of  conditions  or  consent  on  her  own.  The  question  between  Great 
Britain  and  ourselves  thus  stated  would  be  a  question  not  of  right  and  of  law, 
but  of  favor  to  be  conceded  by  her  to  us  in  return  for  favors  shown  by  us  to 
her,  of  the  value  of  which  favors  on  both  sides  we  ourselves  shall  be  the 
judge.  Of  course  the  United  States  could  have  no  thought  of  raising  such  a 
question  in  any  case. 

I  trust  that  I  have  shown  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  British  government,  by  a 
very  simple  and  natural  statement  of  the  facts,  and  analysis  of  the  law  applica¬ 
ble  to  them,  that  this  government  has  neither  meditated,  nor  practiced,  nor  ap¬ 
proved  any  deliberate  wrong  in  the  transaction  to  which  they  have  called  its 
attention ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  that  what  has  happened  has  been  simply  an 
inadvertency,  consisting  in  a  departure,  by  the  naval  officer,  free  from  any 
wrongful  motive,  from  a  rule  uncertainly  established,  and  probably  by  the  seve¬ 
ral  parties  concerned  either  imperfectly  understood  or  entirely  unknown.  For 
this  error  the  British  government  has  a  right  to  expect  the  same  reparation  that 
we,  as  an  independent  State,  should  expect  from  Great  Britain  or  from  any  other 
friendly  nation  in  a  similar  case. 

I  have  not  been  unaware  that,  in  examining  this  question,  I  have  fallen  into 
an  argument  for  what  seems  to  be  the  British  side  of  it  against  my  own  country. 
But  1  am  relieved  from  all  embarrassment  on  that  subject.  I  had  hardly  fallen 
into  that  line  of  argument  when  I  discovered  that  I  was  really  defending  and 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


435 


maintaining,  not  an  exclusively  British  interest,  but  an  old,  honored,  and  cher¬ 
ished  American  cause,  not  upon  British  authorities,  hut  upon  principles  that 
constitute  a  large  portion  of  the  distinctive  policy  by  which  the  United  States 
have  developed  the  resources  of  a  continent,  and  thus  becoming  a  considerable 
maritime  power,  have  won  the  respect  and  confidence  of  many  nations.  These 
principles  were  laid  down  for  us  in  1804,  by  James  Madison,  when  Secretary  of 
State  in  the  administration  of  Thomas  Jefferson,  in  instructions  given  to  James 
Monroe,  our  Minister  to  England.  Although  the  case  before  him  concerned  a 
description  of  persons  different  from  those  who  are  incidentally  the  subjects  of 
the  present  discussion,  the  ground  he  assumed  then  was  the  same  I  now  occupy, 
and  the  arguments  by  which  he  sustained  himself  upon  it,  have  been  an  inspira¬ 
tion  to  me  in  preparing  this  reply. 

“Whenever,”  lie  says,  “property  found  in  a  neutral  vessel  is  supposed  to  be 
liable  on  any  ground  to  capture  and  condemnation,  the  rule  in  all  cases  is,  that 
the  question  shall  not  be  decided  by  the  captor,  but  be  carried  before  a  legal 
tribunal,  where  a  regular  trial  may  be  had,  and  where  the  captor  himself  is 
liable  to  damages  for  an  abuse  of  his  power.  Can  it  be  reasonable,  then,  or  just, 
that  a  belligerent  commander  who  is  thus  restricted,  and  thus  responsible  in  a 
case  of  mere  property  of  trivial  amount,  should  be  permitted,  without  recurring 
to  any  tribunal  whatever,  to  examine  the  crew  of  a  neutral  vessel,  to  decide  the 
important  question  of  their  respective  allegiances,  and  to  carry  that  decision  into 
execution  by  forcing  every  individual  he  may  choose  into  a  service  abhorrent  to 
his  feelings,  cutting  him  off  from  his  most  tender  connexions,  exposing  his  mind 
and  his  person  to  the  most  humiliating  discipline,  and  his  life  itself  to  the  great¬ 
est  danger.  Reason,  justice  and  humanity  unite  in  protesting  against  so  extrav¬ 
agant  a  proceeding.” 

If  I  decide  this  case  in  favor  of  my  own  government,  I  must  disavow  its  most 
cherished  principles,  and  reverse  and  forever  abandon  its  essential  policy.  The 
country  cannot  afford  the  sacrifice.  If  I  maintain  those  principles,  and  adhere 
to  that  policy,  I  must  surrender  the  case  itself.  It  will  be  seen,  therefore,  that 
this  government  could  not  deny  the  justice  of  the  claim  presented  to  us  in  this 
respect  upon  its  merits.  We  are  asked  to  do  to  the  British  nation  just  what  we 
have  always  insisted  all  nations  ought  to  do  to  us. 

The  claim  of  the  British  government  is  not  made  in  a  discourteous  manner. 
This  government,  since  its  first  organization,  has  never  used  more  guarded  lan¬ 
guage  in  a  similar  case. 

In  coming  to  my  conclusion  I  have  not  forgotten  that,  if  the  safety  of  this  Union 
required  the  detention  of  the  captured  persons,  it  would  be  the  right  and  duty 
of  this  government  to  detain  them.  But  the  effectual  check  and  waning  propor¬ 
tions  of  the  existing  insurrection,  as  well  as  the  comparative  unimportance  of  the 
captured  persons  themselves,  when  dispassionately  weighed,  happily  forbid  me 
from  resorting  to  that  defence. 

Nor  am  I  unaware  that  American  citizens  are  not  in  any  case  to  be  unnece- 
sarily  surrendered  for  any  purpose  into  the  keeping  of  a  foreign  State.  Only  the 
captured  persons,  however,  or  others  who  are  interested  in  them,  could  justly 
raise  a  question  on  that  ground. 

Nor  have  I  been  tempted  at  all  by  suggestions  that  cases  might  be  found  in 
history  where  Great  Britain  refused  to  yield  to  other  nations,  and  even  to  our¬ 
selves,  claims  like  that  which  is  now  before  us.  Those  cases  occurred  when 
Great  Britain,  as  well  as  the  United  States,  was  the  home  of  generations,  which, 
with  all  their  peculiar  interests  and  passions,  have  passed  away.  She  could  in 
no  other  way  so  effectually  disavow  any  such  injury  as  we  think  she  does  by 
assuming  now  as  her  own  the  ground  upon  which  we  then  stood.  It  would  tell 
little  for  our  own  claims  to  the  character  of  a  just  and  magnanimous  people  if  we 
should  so  far  consent  to  be  guided  by  the  law  of  retaliation  as  to  lift  up  buried 


436 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


injuries  from  tlieir  graves  to  oppose  against  what  national  consistency  and  the 
national  conscience  compel  us  to  regard  as  a  claim  intrinsically  right. 

Putting  behind  me  all  suggestions  of  this  kind,  I  prefer  to"  express  my  satis¬ 
faction  that,  by  the  adjustment  of  the  present  case  upon  principles  confessedly 
American,  and  yet,  as  I  trust,  mutually  satisfactory  to  both  of  the  nations  con¬ 
cerned,  a  question  is  finally  and  rightly  settled  between  them,  which,  heretofore 
exhausting  not  only  all  forms  of  peaceful  dscussion,  but  also  the  arbitrament  of 
war  itselt,  for  more  than  half  a  century  alienated  the  two  countries  from  each 
other,  and  perplexed  with  fears  and  apprehensions  all  other  nations. 

The  four  persons  in  question  are  now  held  in  military  custody  at  Fort  War¬ 
ren,  in  the  State  of  Massachusetts.  They  will  be  cheerfully  liberated.  Your 
lordship  will  please  indicate  a  time  and  place  for  receiving  them. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  occasion  to  offer  to  your  lordship  a  renewed  assurance 
of  my  very  high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

The  Right  Honorable  Lord  Lyons,  fyc.,  <$r.,  tyc. 


Mr.  Thouvenel  to  Mr.  Mercier. 

[Translation.] 

Administration  of  Foreign  Affairs, 
Political  Department ,  Paris,  December  3,  1861. 

Sir  :  The  arrest  of  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell,  on  board  the  English  packet 
Trent,  by  an  American  cruiser,  has  produced  in  France,  if  not  the  same  emotion 
as  in  England,  at  least  extreme  astonishment  and  sensation.  Public  sentiment 
was  at  once  engrossed  with  the  lawfulness  and  the  consequence  of  such  an  act, 
and  the  impression  which  has  resulted  from  this  has  not  been  for  an  instant 
doubtful. 

Plie  fact  has  appeared  so  much  out  of  accordance  with  the  ordinary  rules  of 
international  law  that  it  has  chosen  to  throw  the  responsibility  for  it  exclusively 
on  the  commander  of  the  San  Jacinto.  It  is  not  yet  given  to  us  to  know 
whether  this  supposition  is  well  founded  ;  and  the  government  of  the  Emperor 
has,  therefore,  also  had  to  examine  the  question  raised  by  the  taking  away  of 
the  two  passengers  from  the  Trent.  The  desire  to  contribute  to  prevent  a  con¬ 
flict,  perhaps  imminent,  between  two  powers  for  which  it  is  animated  by  senti¬ 
ments  equally  friendly,  and  the  duty  to  uphold,  for  the  purpose  of  placing  the 
rights  of  its  own  flag  under  shelter  from  any  attack,  certain  principles,  essential 
to  the  security  of  neutrals,  have,  after  mature  reflection,  convinced  it  that  it 
could  not,  under  the  circumstances,  remain  entirely  silent. 

If,  to  our  deep  regret,  the  cabinet  at  Washington  were  disposed  to  approve 
the  conduct  of  the  commander  of  the  San  Jacinto,  it  would  be  either  by  consid¬ 
ering  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  as  enemies,  or  as  seeing  in  them  nothing  but 
rebels.  In  the  one,  as  in  the  other  case,  there  would  be  a  forgetfulness,  ex¬ 
tremely  annoying,  of  principles  upon  which  we  have  always  found  the  United 
States  in  agreement  with  us. 

By  what  title  in  effect  would  the  American  cruiser,  in  the  first  case,  have 
arrested  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell?  PPie  United  States  have  admitted  with 
us,  in  the  treaties  concluded  between  the  two  countries,  that  the  freedom  of  the 
flag  extends  itself  over  the  persons  found  on  board,  should  they  be  enemies  of 
one  of  the  two  parties,  unless  the  question  is  of  military  people  actually  in  the 
service  of  the  enemy.  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  were,  therefore,  by  virtue  of 
this  principle,  which  we  have  never  found  any  difficulty  in  causing  to  be  inserted 
in  our  treaties  of  friendship  and  commerce,  perfectly  at  liberty  under  the  neutral 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


437 


flag’  of  England.  Doubtless  it  will  not  be  pretended  that  they  could  be  consid¬ 
ered  as  contraband  of  war.  That  which  constitutes  contraband  of  war  is  not 
yet,  it  is  true,  exactly  settled;  the  limitations  are  not  absolutely  the  same  for 
all  the  powers;  but  in  what  relates  to  persons,  the  special  stipulations  which 
are  found  in  the  treaties  concerning  military  people  define  plainly  the  character 
of  those  who  only  can  be  seized  upon  by  belligerents ;  but  there  is  no  need  to 
demonstrate  that  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell  could  not  be  assimilated  to  persons 
in  that  category.  There  remains,  therefore,  to  invoke,  in  explanation  of  their 
capture,  only  the  pretext  that  they  were  the  bearers  of  official  despatches  from 
the  enemy ;  but  this  is  the  moment  to  recall  a  circumstance  which  governs  all 
this  affair,  and  which  renders  the  conduct  of  the  American  cruiser  unjustifiable. 

The  Trent  was  not  destined  to  a  point  belonging  to  one  of  the  belligerents. 
She  was  carrying  to  a  neutral  country  her  cargo  and  her  passengers ;  and,  more¬ 
over,  it  was  in  a  neutral  port  that  they  were  taken.  If  it  were  admissible  that, 
under  such  conditions,  the  neutral  flag  does  not  completely  cover  the  persons 
and  merchandise  it  carries,  its  immunity  would  be  nothing  more  than  an  idle 
word;  at  any  moment  the  commerce  and  the  navigation  of  third  powers  would 
have  to  suffer  from  their  innocent  and  even  their  indirect  relations  with  the  one 
or  the  other  of  the  belligerents.  These  last  would  no  longer  find  themselves  as 
having  only  the  right  to  exact  from  the  neutral  entire  impartiality,  and  to  inter¬ 
dict  all  intermeddling  on  his  part  in  acts  of  hostility.  They  would  impose  on 
his  freedom  of  commerce  and  navigation  restrictions  which  modern  international 
law  has  refused  to  admit  as  legitimate ;  and  we  should,  in  a  word,  fall  back 
upon  vexatious  practices,  against  which,  in  other  epochs,  no  power  has  more  earn¬ 
estly  protested  than  the  United  States. 

If  the  cabinet  of  Washington  would  only  look  on  the  two  persons  arrested 
as  rebels,  whom  it  is  always  lawful  to  seize,  the  question,  to  place  it  on  other 
ground,  could  not  be  solved,  however,  in  a  sense  in  favor  of  the  commander  of 
the  San  Jacinto.  There  would  be,  in  such  case,  misapprehension  of  the  prin¬ 
ciple  which  makes  a  vessel  a  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  nation  whose  flag  it 
bears,  and  violation  of  that  immunity  which  prohibits  a  foreign  sovereign,  by 
consequence,  from  the  exercise  of  his  jurisdiction.  It  certainly  is  not  necessary 
to  recall  to  mind  with  what  energy,  under  every  circumstance,  the  government 
of  the  United  States  has  maintained  this  immunity,  and  the  right  of  asylum 
which  is  the  consequence  of  it. 

Not  wishing  to  enter  upon  a  more  deep  discussion  of  the  questions  raised  by 
the  capture  of  Messrs.  Mason  and  Slidell,  I  have  said  enough,  I  think,  to  settle 
the  point  that  the  cabinet  of  Washington  could  not,  without  striking  a  blow  at 
the  principles  which  all  neutral  nations  are  alike  interested  in  holding  in  respect, 
nor  without  taking  the  attitude  of  contradiction  of  its  own  course  up  to  this 
time,  give  its  approbation  to  the  proceedings  of  the  commander  of  the  San  Ja¬ 
cinto.  In  this  state  of  things  it  evidently  should  not,  according  to  our  views, 
hesitate  about  the  determination  to  be  taken. 

Lord  Lyons  is  already  instructed  to  present  the  demand  for  satisfaction  which 
the  English  cabinet  is  under  the  necessity  of  reducing  to  form,  and  which  con¬ 
sists  in  the  immediate  release  of  the  persons  taken  from  on  board  the  Trent, 
and  in  sending  explanations  which  may  take  from  this  act  its  offensive  character 
toward  the  British  flag.  The  federal  government  will  be  inspired  by  a  just 
and  exalted  feeling  in  deferring  to  these  requests.  One  would  search  in  vain  to 
what  end,  for  what  interest,  it  would  hazard  to  provoke,  by  a  different  attitude, 
a  rupture  with  Great  Britain. 

Eor  ourselves,  we  should  see  in  that  fact  a  deplorable  complication,  in  every 
respect,  of  the  difficulties  with  which  the  cabinet  of  Washington  has  already  to 
struggle,  and  a  precedent  of  a  nature  seriously  to  disquiet  all  the  powers  which 
continue  outside  of  the  existing  contest.  We  believe  that  we  give  evidence  of 
loyal  friendship  for  the  cabinet  of  Washington  by  not  permitting  it  to  remain 


438 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


in  ignorance,  in  this  condition  of  things,  of  our  manner  of  regarding  it.  I  re¬ 
quest  you,  therefore,  sir,  to  seize  the  first  occasion  of  opening  yourself  frankly 
to  Mr.  Seward,  and,  if  he  asks  it,  send  him  a  copy  of  this  despatch. 

Receive,  sir,  the  assurance  of  my  high  consideration, 

THOUVENEL. 


Monsieur  Henri  Mercier, 

Minister  of  the  Emperor  at  Washington. 


Mr.  Seward  to  Mr.  Mercier. 


Department  of  State, 
Washington,  December  27,  1861. 

Sir  :  I  have  submitted  to  the  President  the  copy  you  were  so  good  as  to  give 
me  of  the  despatch  addressed  to  you  on  the  3d  of  December  instant,  concerning 
the  recent  proceedings  of  Captain  Wilkes,  in  arresting  certain  persons  on  board 
of  the  British  contract  mail  steamer  Trent. 

Before  receiving  the  paper,  however,  the  President  had  decided  upon  the  dis¬ 
position  to  be  made  of  the  subject,  which  has  caused  so  much  anxiety  in  Europe. 
That  disposition  of  the  subject,  as  I  think,  renders  unnecessary  any  discus¬ 
sion  of  it,  in  reply  to  the  comments  of  Mr.  Thouvenel.  I  am  permitted,  however, 
to  say  that  Mr.  Thouvenel  has  not  been  in  error  in  supposing,  first,  that  the 
government  of  the  United  States  has  not  acted  in  any  spirit  of  disregard  of  the 
rights,  or  of  the  sensibilities,  of  the  British  nation,  and  that  he  is  equally  just 
in  assuming  that  the  United  States  would  consistently  vindicate,  by  their  prac¬ 
tice  on  this  occasion,  the  character  they  have  so  long  maintained  as  an  advocate 
of  the  most  liberal  principles  concerning  the  rights  of  neutral  States  in  mari¬ 
time  war. 

When  the  French  government  shall  come  to  see  at  large  the  views  of  this 
government,  and  those  of  the  government  of  Great  Britain,  on  the  subject  now 
in  question,  and  to  compare  them  with  the  views  expressed  by  Mr.  Thouvenel 
on  the  part  of  France,  it  will  probably  perceive  that,  while  it  must  be  admitted 
that  those  three  powers  are  equally  impressed  with  the  same  desire  for  the 
establishment  of  principles  favorable  to  neutral  rights,  there  is,  at  the  same  time, 
not  such  an  entire  agreement  concerning  the  application  of  those  principles  as 
is  desirable  to  secure  that  important  object. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  will  be  happy  if  the  occasion  which 
has  elicited  this  correspondence  can  be  improved  so  as  to  secure  a  more  definite 
agreement  upon  the  whole  subject  by  all  maritime  powers. 

You  will  assure  Mr.  Thouvenel  that  this  government  appreciates  as  well  the 
frankness  of  his  explanations,  as  the  spirit  of  friendship  and  good  will  towards 
the  United  States  in  which  they  are  expressed. 

It  is  a  sincere  pleasure  for  the  United  States  to  exchange  assurances  of  a 
friendship  which  had  its  origin  in  associations  the  most  sacred  in  the  history  of 
both  countries. 

I  avail  myself  of  this  opportunity  to  renew  to  you,  sir,  the  assurance  of  my 
high  consideration. 

WILLIAM  H.  SEWARD. 

Mr.  IIenri  Mercier,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


CORRESPONDENCE. 


439 


Lord  Lyons  to  Mr.  Seward. 

Washington,  December  27,  1S61. 

Sir  :  I  have  this  morning;  received  the  note  which  vou  did  me  the  honor  to 
address  to  me  yesterday,  in  answer  to  Earl  Russell’s  despatch  of  the  30th  No¬ 
vember  last,  relative  to  the  removal  of  Mr.  Mason,  Mr.  Slidell,  Mr.  McFarland, 
and  Mr.  Eustis  from  the  British  mail  packet  “  Trent.” 

I  will,  without  any  loss  of  time,  forward  to  her  Majesty’s  government  a  copy 
of  the  important  communication  which  you  have  made  to  me. 

I  will  also  without  delay,  do  myself  the  honor  to  confer  with  you  personally 
on  the  arrangements  to  he  made  for  delivering  the  four  gentlemen  to  me,  in  order 
that  they  may  be  again  placed  under  the  protection  of  the  British  flag. 

I  have  the  honor  to  be,  with  the  highest  consideration,  sir,  your  most  obedient 
humble  servant, 

LYONS. 

Hon.  William  H.  Seward,  fyc.,  fyc.,  fyc. 


. 


4 


/ 


. 


> 

. 


1 

' 


. 


-  . 


■ 


' 


■ 

*- 


I 


U«1 

fM 

1 

>*Ci 


§ 


7Cm 


>m 

V>J 


t] jh 


)h 

; 

"rtS 


WJj 


Ti'» 


